Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karadjin/Archive

Report date September 28 2009, 14:45 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Recently a new user was created, concentrated only on the Irina Bokova article. Seeing his position is against a consensus of four other editors, he started editing when logged off. Meanwhile the IP and the User seem to be the same person, judging from their comments on the talkpage. As it became evident he'd still lack firepower, the user created a sockpuppet account.  L a v e o l  T 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  L a v e o l  T


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments By Karadjin

I am indeed new to Wikipedia and I do not possess the level of technical literacy to refute the "seeming" attribution of the quoted IP address to me. On that, I could only note that the accuser seem to be admitting that s/he does not possess any evidence to support her/his speculation that the IP address is mine and that I have created "Vidrica". For one thing - both the style and the substance of my arguments and proposed edits are visibly different from the arguments of "Vidrica" and the anonymous edit.

'''On the substance:

a/ The Edits'''

- I have designed the entire "Controversy" section. There was before that only the quote by Mr. Troyanov and a reference to a web-page in Bulgarian. To insure a balanced presentation of the dispute (which is real in Bulgaria with new articles everyday) I have added the first sentence stating that Ms. Bokova is supported by the majority of the Bulgarian media with a quote to an editorial of the country's leading newspaper - a strong position of the editors of a national newspaper. Does not sound as a POV pushing, huh?

- My further edits are exclusively focused on THE FACT OF THE CONTROVERSY, not on making any allegations. In a painstaking manner I have tried to document who claims what, what is the basis of these claims and how are they seen relevant to Ms. Bokova's appointment.

- In her/his remarks my accuser is manipulative and shows a strong bias: s/he accuses me of claiming that Ms. Bokova has expressed support of her father's actions. This is in plain contradiction to what I did - document important elements of an on-going debate focusing oh her LACK OF REACTION.

- The anonymous edit is easily distinguishable both in the quality of its English and it substance. Contrary to my easily discernible intend it actually claims that Ms. Bokova's father has been proven to be the assassin. I have gone to a sufficient effort both in the article and the discussion to underscore the fact that there are only allegations and to provide in the most detailed manner the source and the basis for the allegations

- I have quoted the book, then referred to its sources and then commented on its credentials. An all of that only to show that the allegations are serious but only passing a prima facie test. From the point of view of legal technique this is a very qualified position.

- All in all, the portion proposed by me is the best documented in the entire article.

b/ The Discussion

In discussion

-I have argued that it is relevant to mention the Alexiev controversy because if the question of Ms. Bokova's pedigree has been referred to by virtually all domestic and international media, a fortiori the much more serious and particular allegation that her father was not simply an ideologue of the regime but may(!) have tortured and executed a notable figure, is much more important.

- I have noted that what makes the entire matter relevant to Ms Bokova's new role is the fact that the victim was an artist and journalist, and was killed for that.

- I have explained that I am only reporting the FACT OF THE CONTROVERSY AND OF THE ALLEGATIONS, I am not defending them.

- I have not engaged in any anti-communist or anti-anti-communist rhetoric politicizing the matter

My motives and my actions

1. I am new to Wikipedia and I was indeed drown to join it by the case of Ms. Bokova. But I guess it is not uncommon or wrong that people first start contributing because of something they feel strongly for.

2. My first edit was indeed without registration. My first detailed justification was also anonymous and it is very easy to identify it by its stile and arguments. I then felt that participating in a debate without registration is not right and created my account. Since then I have created a new article in the Bulgarian wiki on a historical matter.

3. I have restored the language on the Alexiev allegation three times as there were no arguments for removing them. But In all cases I have tried to make it more succinct and focused.

4. After I saw that a third person has removed this language and after my accuser's arguments in the Discussion (however inadequate and misguided) I stopped restoring the portion. I have no responsibility for the actions of "Vidriza"

5. It is not relevant but, for what it is worth, I am not a Bokova-hater and I am not pressing an "anti-communist" agenda here. As a matter of fact, I have defended her against the first waive of antagonisms based solely on her general family background. I find such transferal of generational blame unjust. What affected me was the information of the allegations of the assassination of Alexiev. It was a total news for me and since the book in which they are spelled is also fairly new I feel strongly that Ms. Bokova, for her own good, should find a way to comment on them. All the circumstances around the assassination are quite shocking - it was unnecessary and extremely cruel even by the standards of a civil war. I feel strongly that Ms. Bokova will be unable to serve with honor unless she reacts to this particular allegation, whether by denying it (and I am perfectly prepared to credit evidence to the contrary of the allegations), or by sharing her moral judgement. It was because of this conviction of mine, that I wanted to publicize the fact of the allegations. But I am also absolutely sure that it is objectively relevant. Not because I hate Bokova (personally - pending her reaction n this case - I have substantial respect for her) and not because I want to blame her for what her father did. I simply think that being the leader of UNESCO calls for a higher standard of moral sensitiveness, particularly where it concerns executions of journalists and artists.

6. Let me give an example: In the 60ies UNESCO commemorated another Bulgarian poet of the same period - Vapcarov. Mr. Vapcarov was an active communist and was found guilty by the court of engaging in what we would call today terrorist activities and executed. Mr. Alexiev was ani-communist but the only thing he did was make caricatures of Stalin and his main guilt was that his newspaper was very popular. For that, after the communist take-over he was abducted and tortured to death. No court, no verdict. Vapcarov is one of my favorite poets and I find it perfectly adequate that UNESCO celebrated both his art and him-self as a martyr of consciousness. But Alexiev was equally important cultural figure of the time albeit of opposing views. What is UNESCO was to celebrate Alexiev during Ms. Bokova Tenure? What if she has to condemn the executions of other artists and journalists? Wouldn't that cause some questions given her silence of the case of Alexiev? Can we imagine that the daughter of the executioner of a Chilean or Spanish poet would take up such positions and there will be no questions and even the mentioning.

7.And, finally, my position may be in a minority, but I am not throwing names at or submitting reports against my opponents and I am taking the time to detail all my justifications in a respectful manner. Any one with minimum intellectual honesty can see weather my accuser has acted in the same manner. The fact that there is one new contributer trying to add relevant information and there are three who without much arguments simply try to silence it should not be judged by a majority standard. Gang-deleting can be as biased as any other form of manipulating the truth. And the objective truth is that in Bulgaria there is the debate on Ms. Bokova's attitude to a grave crime against artistic integrity. You decide whether the fact of this debate belongs to an article about her.

I may be wrong in my evaluation of what is relevant or not to a wiki article and in my moral indignation, but I am acting in good faith.

That is the last from me on the matter.

Best regards, Karajin


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Karadji is ❌. Vidrizta and 217.79.81.3 are the same. All live in the same geographic region. Brandon (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No action taken at this time. Combined with the negative technical evidence and what very little contribs that I see in front of me, I don't see enough here to show that sock puppetry has occurred. MuZemike 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions