Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique/Archive

Evidence submitted by ThaddeusB
The long banned and perpetual socker User:Art Dominique (see: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique, Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Art_Dominique) appears to be back to his pushing his "Soviet agression" POV on Continuation War. However, it is possible that these may be "innocent" POV pushers that happen to share his point of view. Most the account are already blocked, but I'm asking for a CU to see how feasible it is to range block him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional diff of interest: --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Illythr
To be more precise, this user's single-minded focus in presenting his POV seems to transcend human comprehension: unlike "normal" POV-pushers, who, once rejected, tend to try new ways of doing their thing, this one uses the same approach over and over for more than three years, now. While the content this new incarnation is trying to get through has changed (only the essence remains now), the tactic is always the same - constant reverts coupled with lengthy rants on talk pages that give the impression of someone frustrated with unreasonable opposition and willing to talk. This impression quickly fades as soon as you actually try talking to him, though - it feels like talking to a wall. A talking wall that may echo some of your words back at you, but never actually hears what you are saying. Latest example can be found here. If someone's willing to risk their sanity and do a comparison, here's where poor user:Husond gets to bear the brunt of yet another offensive back in 2007 (!). And here's the result of the one attempt to initiate some kind of dialogue with Art Dominique. --Illythr (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the latest confirmed sockpuppet of Art Dominique is User:A. Tihonov (December 2008). --Illythr (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Username War began with Soviet offensive is not only "likely" me - it is me.

However, it is not my sockpuppet. It is my previous username, which I only used for very short period of time, in conjunction with the Continuation War article. Then User ThaddeusB wrote to me, stating the following:

"Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change."

The simplest thing to do was to create a new user account. Since I only had made a very small amount of contributions under the previous account, I didn't care for being credited for them.

As I had only contributed to the Continuation War page, I made sure to clearly report to other users on the Talk:Continuation War page, that - "per request" - I had changed my user name. This notice I placed under an individual comment heading, so that it can easily be noticed by all. I stated what had been my previous username, and what I had changed it to.

I later wrote to User ThaddeusB, that I had been glad to comply with his username change request. I also told him that the username Kingroodney is in no way associated with me.

Based on the activity of the highly disruptive and misbehaving user account of Kingroodney, the soul purpose of it's creation and operation appears to have been to try to make it seem as though it is my sockpuppet account - to get me and other likely-minded contributors in trouble. I believe that account to be the works of user Illythr.

The username Enabling others also has no association with me. Boris Novikov (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From my talk:

"Art Dominique was obsessed specifically with the Continuation war - almost all his socks were single purpose accounts that pushed the same POV with single-minded focus into that one article. He also edited some topic-relevant articles like Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but the primary article is his main haunt. The latest one seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual - he actually made a valid point before reverting to the usual mantra. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)"


 * As such, I would say there at least some small chance that Boris is unrelated since he doesn't quite fit the usual pattern. (And yes, if Boris is unrelated to Art then "War began with Soviet offensive" is not actually a sock. It was shut down for username reasons only, making a creation of a new account perfectly legit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * is .  is  . I just gave this a quick look over so I'm going to call it likely and endorse for further review. The connection between this case and Sockpuppet investigations/Jojojohnson2 should also be looked into it. Brandon (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any updates? Is this being deferred to another CU or is still in progress? -- Kanonkas : Talk  19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't really make too much sense of this is  for sure, either he just took an odd interest in the topic or he is the same person as Art Dominique. Brandon (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by YMB29
User:Boris Novikov is a suspected sock puppet of User:Art Dominique. 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 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, then come recent talk page edits by Boris Novikov ):

''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).'' 

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. 

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." 

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." 

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. 

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" 

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. -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:

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:

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 the following website to the Continuation War's talk page:

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):

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:  ... and user Biophys (talk), here:   ... and user Koivuhalko (talk), here:   ... 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 - - was saved, although my later response to it from January 20 -  - 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 exact same comments which do not get archived, while the responses to them do get archived, and in very confusing order.


 * To add to his many ways disruptive editing, user YMB29 has also resorted to posting his comments inside the comments of other users - rather than after - as in here: | Line 2,607


 * 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  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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, this seems clear enough on behavioral grounds. I've blocked the account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Marking as closed. –MuZemike 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

23 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Art Dominique was blocked indefinitely in 2006 for edit-warring and socking on articles relating to Finnish history, including adding WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material relating to Finns/Kvens (material sourced to odd sources, none of which can be easily verified since they aren't available on line and would be very difficult to get hold of in hard-copy, and in most cases also are in foreign languages; most of it being based on the decidely non-mainstream theories of Kyösti Julku and Kalevi Wiik; to give you an idea of how far away from the mainstream the theories posted by the various socks are, the claims have included that the Germanic languages derive from Finnish, and that Rurik and the Varangians/Vikings weren't Scandinavians but Finns) on a number of articles, such as Kvens and Kvenland. But has continued to add the same and similar fringe material on the same and similar articles, and if needed edit-war to keep it in the articles, using a long line of socks, from 2006 until as recently as a couple of days ago, when the three latest socks,, and , were blocked.

During 2006 and the early part of 2007 the socks used were both named throw-away accounts and a considerable number of IPs, but after having had a large number of named socks blocked (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique) the sock master seems to have used only IPs during the next three years (all geolocating to Finland; during 2009 and 2010 there was very little activity, by anyone, on the articles I checked, though). The use of named throw-away accounts then seems to have started again in 2011, in many cases with a separate sock created for each article edited, and even a new sock for each time an article was edited, in an obvious deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny. The list of socks above is far from comprehensive, just a small sample of socks to show that this has been going on continouosly since 2006. For more information about early socking by Art Dominique see this.

What first caught my attention was that a number of user accounts adding the same type of material had similar user names, common Swedish female given names, and a user page with just a dot on (added to make the user name a blue link in watchlists and page histories, and make it less likely that the edits were checked; clearly showing that the accounts had been created by an experienced user). And when checking further back in time on a handful of articles I found more and more obviously connected throw-away accounts and IPs, leading all the way back to 2006 and Art Dominique.

Sample edits:

Art Dominique (2006): (compare the sample edit with these consecutive edits from 2012 by Vigelandsdotter)

Digi Wiki (2006): (In this old thread Art Dominique admits that Digi Wiki is their sock)

IP91.156.108.170 (2008): ,

ErikOppland (2011, 2012): (created user page with just a dot on in March 2012, a full year after most edits were made, possibly as a test, since (almost) all socks created after that have had just a dot on the user page, but none before that; note how the edits in March 2011 changed/falsified the sourced content "The Scandinavian placenames Finnveden, Finnmark and the province of Finland (which gave name to Finland) are all thought to be derived from finn, an ancient Germanic word for nomadic "hunter-gatherers" (as opposed to sedentary farmers, cf. to find " to "The Scandinavian placenames Finnveden, Finnmark and the province of Finland (which gave name to Finland) are all thought to derive from Finn, an ancient Germanic word for the Finnic people inhabiting areas of Fenno-Scandia and Scandinavia" to make it look as if the source supported the rest of the edit, behaviour that is typical)

KEriksdotter1 (2011): ,

Vigelandsdotter (2012): (created user page with a dot as first edit; used only on 31 March and 1 April 2012; compare the consecutive edits in the diff with the edit by Art Dominique above)

Britaxxx (2012):, (created user page with dot)

RasboKaren (2012, 2013):, , (created user page with "<3" as first edit; account used only in November 2012 and March 2013; blocked for 48h for "tendentious editing, WP:FRINGE and edit-warring" in november 2012; see also note below)

A1 Karin Å (2012, 2013, 2014): (created user page with short nonsense text as first edit; account used three times on the same article, with up to a year between each time, showing that the editor hadn't forgotten the password, but still created multiple other accounts during that time...)

Åsaxxx (2012, 2013):, (created user page with dot; active in 2012 and 2013 but inactive between the very short active periods)

Lena Ast (2013): (created user page with dot; multiple socks were active in parallell on Kvenland during 2013, supporting each other)

AHenrikaB (2013): (created user page with a dot; active only in early 2013)

Carolina212 (2013): ] (created user page with a dot; active only during three consecutive days in April 2013, the diff shows cumulative edits; note how the edits changed the sourced content " In the early Umesaami dictionaries the terms Kainolads and Kainahalja described Norwegian and Swedish men and women respectively" to the direct opposite "In the early Umesaami dictionaries the terms Kainolads and Kainahalja described respectively Finnic men and women inhabiting the northern parts of the modern-day areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland" to make it seem as if the reference supported the other edits made)

BoArnezzz (2013, 2014): (created user page with a dot; active on Kvenland in February 2013 and January 2014, but inactive during the 11 months between those periods; see also note below about Finnedi)

BogatusAB (2013-2014): (created user page with a dot; active on Kvenland in February 2013 and April 2014, but inactive in between; interesting mainly because of having posted on Finnedi's talk page; see note below)

Annika Dlb (2015): (created user page with a dot, but only made one edit in article space before being blocked; confirmed by CU to be the same editor as Åsa Gunilla and Karin Andxxx)

Åsa Gunilla (2015): (created user page with a dot; confirmed by CU to be the same editor as Annika Dlb and Karin Andxxx)

Karin Andxxx (2015):, (created user page with a dot; confirmed by CU to be the same editor as Annika Dlb and Åsa Gunilla)

A couple of fellow editors have suggested there might be a connection to Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi, but I don't think they're the same editor, since the material that Finnedi didn't like and edit-warred to remove was added/edited by socks listed in this SPI, primarily. Because of slightly different style and behaviour, listed above, might be connected to Finnedi instead of Art Dominique. Thomas.W talk 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

It has been two or 1 and a half months, and still no checkuser. Will someone please respond? I am a user who merely wishes to help out, and noticed that this case is still here, despite the fact that nothing has been done. 92.25.203.176 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W asked me to take a look at this - we are both SPI clerk trainees but my comments here should not be considered a clerk action. Without going into too much detail, I think it's clear that the accounts which created a user page with a dot or some other nonsense and then jumped into pushing the POV helpfully defined here by are all obviously the same person. One of those same persons is, who Thomas.W already described as restoring a timeline created by more than six years earlier; I think that is enough to connect all of these accounts to the master. Creating a new sock for each article also seems to be one of Art Dominique's hallmarks. I agree these are not likely related to, despite the topic overlap, as Finnedi's POV is usually opposite and their pattern is different. All that said, I don't know if it would be worthwhile to issue blocks on the inactive socks, but if they become active again then this case can be used to connect them to the master's long history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Three recent accounts are already blocked. All others are years old, so I'm closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In normal circumstances, I wouldn't argue with your closure. However, I and another administrator encouraged Thomas.W to file this SPI specifically to set a baseline for the future. Therefore, I've reopened the case and would sincerely appreciate it if you would do a behavioral analysis and reach a conclusion as to the sock puppetry. Thomas.W's presentation of the evidence should facilitate this inquiry, but there's no urgency to it. I know you're busy. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected this report due to IPs warring to change the status. I'll ping Vanjagejie to see if he has any suggestions of where to go from here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing without prejudice to renewal if there's significant evidence of new disruption. Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)