Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique

Art Dominique

Art Dominique (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique/Archive.

Report date February 13 2010, 21:56 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Boris Novikov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 87.95.12.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.95.136.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.93.76.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.93.33.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.93.96.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.95.246.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.95.90.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by YMB29

User:Boris Novikov is a suspected sock puppet of User:Art Dominique [1]. Now there is more evidence that he really is his sock.

He has been edit warring again in the Continuation War article to insert his POVed statements. Note the IP users who are most likely him or edit war (and/or post on the talk page) on his behalf. He has scaled down what he adds/reverts in the article [2] but on the talk page (which he clutters with repeating statements) he reveals who he is.

Here is a comparison between the edits of one of Art Dominique's socks, User:WorldWars, and Boris Novikov (first are edits by WorldWars from here [3], then come recent talk page edits by Boris Novikov [4]):

the Finns had executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just few hours' time on June 20, 1944, using delaying tactics. The day's fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns dead or missing in action (Eeva Tammi, 8/2006).
vs
The Finns executed a strategic abandonment of Viipuri in just a few hours’ time on June 20, 1944. The day’s fighting in Viipuri was brought to a halt by 16:40, leaving only 120 Finns missing in action or dead (Source: Study by Eeva Tammi, 2006). [5]

In his memoirs, Finland's Marshal Mannerheim emphasizes how Finland had prepared for a defensive campaign - not offensive -, prior to the Soviet opening attack of the Continuation War on June 25, 1941.
vs
In his memoirs, Marshal Mannerheim also emphasizes that Finland had prepared for a defensive war, not offensive, and that is why it took so many weeks for the Finns to rearrange the troops from the defensive formations into offensive formations and to get the counterattack under way. [6]

In his final interview - given to Pro Karelia on December 17, 2003 -, the famed Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth discussed the outcome of the Finnish-Soviet wars, 1939-1944:
"I - having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War - can stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. The Continuation War - in particular - ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term."
vs
Accordingly, in his last interview given, General Ehrnrooth calls the result of the Continuation War a Finnish defensive victory. In the interview given to Pro Karelia on December 17, 2003, the Finnish General of Infantry Adolf Ehrnrooth states:
"I - having participated in both the Winter War and the Continuation War - can stress: I know well, how the wars ended on the battle fields. The Continuation War in particular ended in (Finland's) defensive victory, in the most important meaning of the term." [7]

In the much praised Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("The Battle of Leningrad ...") - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov, and published in the Soviet Union - the outcome of the 1944 massive Soviet summer offensive is revealed accurately:
"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks - from June 21 to mid-July -, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21."
vs
The Finnish defensive victory is reflected also from the statements made in the Soviet book 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' - edited by the Soviet Lieutenant General S.P. Platonov:
"The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces failed ... to gain results. The enemy succeeded in significantly tightening its ranks in this area and in repulsing all attacks of our troops ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them in the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21." [8]

In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" to the Soviet citizens about the events leading up to the Finnish-Soviet wars, and about the casualties and the outcome of the wars.
vs
In his memoirs, the post-WW2 Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev explains how the Soviet officials categorically "lied" to the Soviet citizens about the events leading to the Finnish-Soviet wars, as well as the casualties and the final outcome. [9]

In 1948, in presence of high ranking Finnish government officials, he paid respect to the Finnish Armed Forces in Moscow:
"Nobody respects a nation with poor armed forces. Everyone respects a nation with good armed forces. I raise my toast to the Finnish Armed Forces !" ~ Joseph Stalin
vs
On April 6, 1948, in presence of high ranking Finnish government and military officials in Moscow, Stalin saluted the Finnish Army with a toast, which ended to the following words (the entire - well known - toast speech available per request):
"No-one respects a country with a poor army. Everyone respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army" [10]

I think this is enough proof. The edits are almost the same.

The similarities had been also noticed by other users who have edited the article for a long time and have experience with Art Dominique and his socks. [11] [12] -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Illythr

In addition to the exhaustive list above, here's some additional evidence available by a quick comparison of Archive 4 (last major outbreak of Art Dominique's activity) of Talk:Continuation War with the current state of the talk page:

Art Dominique's socks (User:213.216.199.6, User:Ahven is a fish, User:Nadja Polpova) post extremely verbose text containing repeating statements, that, as demonstrated by YMB29 above, are repeated by Boris Novikov & IPs almost verbatim. In fact, the statements come largely from the same piece of text Art Dominique tried to insert with his sockpuppet army all these years. --Illythr (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

NO SOCKPUPPETRY, ONLY OCCASIONAL FAILING TO LOG IN. MY WRITINGS ARE EASILY RECOGNIZABLE - NO-ONE HAS COMPLAINED, AND I'VE IMPROVED

First, I - once again - call for user Illythr/YMB29 to please drop false accusations regarding me. He had me checked a couple of months ago as well, and the check-user proved me not to be what user Illythr claims me to be.

For clarification, let it be known that I have occasionally written when quite tired, and thus a bit absent-minded, not noticing that I was not logged in. That marks the worst "crime" that I have participated in, and it was unintentional.

It has also happened, that I have simply forgotten to sign my writing. Thus, I have sometimes signed my writings afterwards, or Wikipedia's automated system has signed on behalf of me.

However, my writings/comments are easily recognizable to those who I have communicated with. I have no reason to deny any of my writings, and I have not used any other user accounts, in addition to this one.

On the Continuation War's talk page, I recall no user ever having questioned my writing, i.e. whether a writing was by me or not. If such a question had ever been raised, I would have immediately clarified what writing was mine. There hasn't been a single case of confusion with that, not that I would have been notified at least.

I have become better in keeping eye on the fact that I am properly logged in, and I will make an extra effort to ensure that.

I can prove that whereas I may have forgotten to log in, my accuser has faked or removed their signature or left their writing totally unsigned, like user Illythr here for instance: [13]

I have introduced a lot of historians on the Continuation War's talk page in the last few months' time. For instance, for the following segment alone, I named 27 known historians agreeing on the same fact: [14]

Thus, the quotes and sources presented by user YMB29 above represent only a fraction of the information - sources and quotes - written by me (much of which was already archived).

The particular quotes referred to by user YMB29 above were borrowed from a couple of popular websites, from where others must have borrowed them as well.

For instance, only a few of days ago I posted [15] the following website to the Continuation War's talk page: [16]

The Platonov quote referred to by user YMB29 above is in that 16 year old website text by Paul Sjöblom, who has passed on to Heaven many years ago. That quote is not a secret - it is famous and widely spread, and it was posted just as seen on that site too.

All of the quotes referred to by user YMB29 above were taken from what came up in a quick search under "Continuation War", as the top result (not including Wikipedia): [17]

The same quotes in question seem to come up from a "Continuation War" search with just about any popular ending - i.e. ContinuationWar.com, ContinuationWar.net, ContinuationWar.org, ContinuationWar.biz, ContinuationWar.info, and so on ... even Finlandization.com, etc.

Thus, it is not surprising that a couple of Wikipedia users may have quoted a few same popular quotes, which are widely spread everywhere and which are known to be critical in determining the war's winner and the war's starter.

If there were not people repeating some of these quotes - the N:o 1 search engine results - in this context, that could be called a miracle.

These quotes appear to be the only ones of the kind available, pronounced by such high ranking political and military leaders of Finland and/or USSR. Just for someone else having brought up any of these most famous quotes, does not mean that others can not discuss them.

On the Soviet side, for instance, General Platonov is the only source available for this particular information, and his statement in question is widely referred to in the related historiography (he explains the Soviet failures in one paragraph).

His words can/must be used as a source, regardless of who else has discusses his statement.

On the Finnish side, the famous quote by General Adolf Ehrnrooth about the "Finnish defensive victory" is also the only one of the kind. In its case too, it is no wonder if various Wikipedia users provide the same quote. It would be amazing if they didn't.

Writing often in a hurry, I have had to resort to repeating some of the quotes to user YMB29, as he keeps repeating the same questions over and over again, just like user Illythr does. I have valid reasons to suspect that these two user accounts - my only opponents for the several last weeks - are operated by one and the same user, and that their purpose is to disrupt the contributions.

Notably, the two accounts are not providing any sources, they only resort to deleting sources and disrupting the development of the article.

Although I have insisted on being friendly and polite to user YMB29, despite of his continuously repeated same questions and bad behavior, others have got tired and/or upset of the fact that he keeps ignoring all given responses, like this month alone user Wanderer602 (talk), here for instance: [18] ... and user Biophys (talk), here: [19] ... and user Koivuhalko (talk), here: [20] ... etc.

I see this as a clear case of frustration settled on user YMB29 (talk), as his above-introduced ignoring tactics have not worked on me. Thus, he has chosen to resort to the utmost radical means possible, to slow down the development of the article and the introduction of appropriate sources.

Accordingly, the article went just through protection maneuvered by him. Simultaneously with the protection, he deleted 15 highly credited sources from the article's lead section which had not been disputed by anyone, including him.

I agree with the three users above, that user YMB29's tactics are highly disruptive for Wikipedia. He has made up this particular fake case to prevent his own editing from being examined. Boris Novikov (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1) INAPPROPRIATE SELECTIVE ARCHIVING HAS MADE A MESS OF THE TALK PAGE:

It is no wonder if the Continuation War's talk page has seemed partially confusing in the recent days. Due to the archiving which was conducted inappropriately, there are old comments left on the talk page - many from the time before I joined Wikipedia (perhaps because the signatures and the dates have been removed) -, whereas many of the much newer responses to those comments and to other more recent comments have been archived.

For instance, user Whiskey's properly signed and dated comment from January 19 - [21] - was saved, although my later response to it from January 20 - [22] - was removed.

Thus, a few hours ago I responded to that user Whiskey's saved comment once again.

The above case of user Whiskey's comment - and other similar cases - makes it obvious that foul play has been done, in apparent attempt to make a mess of the talk page and to block the development of the article.

To be able to see the now disrupted line of thought on the talk page, as well as the detailed introduction of the sources now being attacked by user YMB29 (no-one complained when the sources were introduced in detail - well prior to posting - and not until YMB29 now), one is advised to view the talk page as it was before the archiving of February 15, 2010.

I am bringing up this matter, because user Smocking below suggests that I've done editing in "disruptive manner". I wish to emphasize that when responses have been removed from the talk page in this sort of distorted order, the line of thought indeed may seem "disruptive" to someone new stepping in (Smocking), to say the least.

This confusion, however, is not caused by my editing in alleged "disruptive manner", but instead by my opponent's tampering of the talk page in disruptive manner, as shown above.

Additionally, by not signing comments - or by removing signatures -, as shown in the example case of user Illythr here, the computerized archiving of comments gets not properly done, for one.

Thus, the age-old comments currently saved on the Continuation War's talk page by these sort of tactics ought to be archived by an administrator. These old comments include three near the top of the talk page, which falsely claim Finland of having participated in the Siege of Leningrad.

Because my responses to these old comments were archived - like the many earlier ones from others must have been too -, I responded to them again as well, a few hours ago (I imported back the old answers and made some additions to them).

In my respond here yesterday, I revealed how Wikipedia users - at least a few during this month alone - have got annoyed for having to repeatedly answer to the exact same questions/claims by user YMB29 (oddly enough, the same goes with the account 'Illytr').

Now I have shown, that we also have to repeatedly answer to the same comments which do not get archived, while the responses to them do get archived, and in very confusing order.

I am convinced that my accuser made up this particular fake case - 1) - to block this article from being developed, and - 2) - to prevent his own editing from being examined.

2) AN EXAMPLE OF ME RESPONDING AS 'BORIS NOVIKOV', WHILE I WASN'T LOGGED IN:

Here is an example of me responding clearly as 'Borid Novikov' only two days ago, while I had - unintentionally - not logged in (I though I was logged in): Here, on February 19, I am responding to user Illythr thinking I am logged in

In this example, user Illythr has responded to me (Boris Novikov), but when I answered to user Illythr, I had not noticed that I wasn't logged in. Thus, my signature appeared as an IP address. However, I clearly was not pretending to be anyone else but 'Boris Novikov', as can be seen from my response.

In each case when my writing has appeared under an IP address, the situation has been similar. I have never pretended to be anyone else but 'Boris Novikov', and no-one has ever reported of having confused me for someone else.

I assure you again, this is the only user account I am writing under, and I have no intention to use any other account.

Sincerely, Boris Novikov (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

• Looks clear to me. All those IPs are in the DNAFINLAND netblock, have only been used recently and mostly edit the Continuation War article in a disruptive manner. Smocking (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Hadn't looked at the suspected puppetmaster in detail. Although the IPs and Boris Novikov appear to be the same person and edit the Continuation War article in an edit war, Art_Dominique has zero overlap in contributions [23] with Boris Novikov and seems to have a different style. The IP overlap might just be Boris Novikov forgetting/neglecting to sign in and having a dynamic IP provider. This user is very distruptive, but it does not look like deliberate sockpuppeting. Smocking (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Good enough for me. Endorse as the new evidence shows that many confirmed sockpuppets of Art Dominique have great overlap with puppets suspected here. The apparently different style is probably just a symptom of increased disruptiveness. Smocking (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that Art Dominique has become active in the Continuation War article only after his main account was permanently blocked, so the overlap exists only with his sockpuppets, where it is nearly 100% (most of them were SPAs). See this page for evidence. --Illythr (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Two sets of IPs rangeblocked (87.95.0.0/16 for one month, 87.93.0.0/17 for three months). No comment yet on Boris; I'd need to review in more detail. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

---