Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liuben/Archive

Report date June 8 2009, 14:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Plus many more in the range 84.131...
 * Plus many more in the range 84.131...
 * Plus many more in the range 84.131...

User:Liuben exclusively edited articles related to Liuben Dimitrov, i.e. Genova & Dimitrov (he is one half of the husband and wife piano duo); Stefan Dimitrov (his father); Malina Dimitrova (his mother and deleted per Articles for deletion/Malina Dimitrova)
 * Evidence submitted by Voceditenore

User:Liuben was blocked on 27 December 2008 for repeated addition of copyright material. Shortly thereafter his sockpuppet was also blocked. Starting January 2009, the same type of edits were done under various IPs in the range 84.131..., including the recreation of Genova & Dimitrov via AfC. On 27 March 2009, User:Firebird2000 created an account and proceeeded to edit the same articles, culiminating in a cut and paste move of Stefan Dimitrov to Stefan & Malina Dimitrov (now repaired). – Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: While User:Firebird2000 seems pretty clearly an attempt by User:Liuben to evade a block, it's possible that he nows understands Wikipedia's policies better concerning the seriousness of copyright violation, and personal attacks and vandalism  to user pages. A stern warning may be enough. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Having said that, they still seem to be oblivious to or wilfully disgard sock puppetry policy and the conflict of interest guidelines Voceditenore (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * While the Liuben account is stale, a CU could probably establish a link between Firebird and the IP posted above and that (assuming the evidence submitted accurately characterises the history) could connect Firebird to Liuben. Even so, given the gap between the block and the potential resumed editing, I think we really ought to see evidence of resumed copyright violations in order to consider a block on the Firebird account at this time. Nathan  T 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok by me, although the Liuben account is stale because it's indefinitely blocked. For future reference, can you just confirm that sockpuppetry to evade a block is fine as long as the new sockpuppet doesn't engage in the same behaviour which got the sockmaster banned? Voceditenore (talk)
 * I wouldn't quite say that, but in this case if he was blocked primarily for a single type of behavior and he has reformed that behavior, then blocking him again might not serve the interests of the 'pedia. Nathan  T 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree. Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems a case that could be solved by a simple disclosure from the account in question. Therefore I have asked him. If he confirms, and discloses it, then I think that would be okay. If he doesn't, perhaps this could be flagged for further attention. until the person responds. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

No response, so I've blocked the user indefinitely. IP range 84.131.64.0/18 blocked for one month. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)