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

16 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Tinpa ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnaiz1 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Virginal6 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Symbio04 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Trigaranus

Me and other editors of the article " Antonio Arnaiz-Villena" have come to live with dealing, alternately, with User:Arnaiz1 and User:Virginal6, who blow into one and the same horn (and I don't care much here if one is a sock of the other). On the other hand, a mysterious User:Tinpa has popped up again, who has only ever contributed to Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and nothing else. His accusing and paranoid tone, his lurrve for the CapsLock and his sloppy command of both English and the most basic elements of typography and general editing make it rather clear he is a sock of one, or both, of the others. Trigaranus ( talk) 13:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. The starting of this case: Arnaiz-Villena has published more than 300 papers in human and bird population genetics ,directed 48 Doctoral Thesis and written 9 books.The page is centered in 2 controversial papers and some linguistics theories. 1-Arnaiz-Villena paper in Palestinians came out on September 2001 and 2 months later he and part of his research group were accused after many years of work without problems of all kind of extravagant misscunducts and even crimes. 2-At the same time,somebody made the Palestinian paper to disappear from databases and tearing the article pages from pertinent magazine was urged. 3-Three or four people from Arnaiz-Villena group were momentarily seriously damaged. 4-All accusations were soon demonstrated false.Arnaiz-Villena and other accused people are Civil Servants doing research ,teaching and /or working in the Health Service (see Arnaiz-Villena Discussion details about legal matters). 5-On June 9th 2010,a linguist (Dumu Eduba) who had publically disagreed with Arnaiz-Villena work in WP,started to write a libel about the first legal accusations which were soon demonstrated to be false. 6-Several people affected by the accusation STARTED AT THE SAME TIME (after June 9th 2010) TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. 7-At the same time, Dumu Eduba together with Akerbeltz,Kwamikagami,and Trigaranus started conjointly to attack (as they did before with other maters,like” Iberian-Guanche inscriptions”). 8-Finally,Arnaiz 1,Virginal6,Iberomesornix and Tinpa(?) were declared sock puppets and BLOCKED. 9- Now,should Dumu Eduba group continuing to be handling Arnaiz-Villena matters? Could they be considered each other a kind of sock puppets in this case? 10-It is clear that an attack started after some time by DUMU EDUBA and his group (see Arnaiz-Villena page history and “Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions” deleted page) BECAUSE LINGUISTICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGAL CASES. 11-I am puzzled with this case,since sensationalits newspapers are taken as true value , while offered documents that show that this was false are not taken into account. 12-Please,unblock Arnaiz1 and Virginal6,so they can defend themselves.-- Symbio04 ( talk) 11:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

I deleted the post from the page history, as well as Virginal's restoration of a previous deletion from the page, as they made unsubstantiated legal allegations against named people. Pity; talk-page posts are seldom this entertaining. — kwami ( talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

[edit] dab raised BLP and NPF concerns on the talk page. [1] — kwami ( talk) 10:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

[edit] added a fourth account, created after the other three were blocked. claims to be a colleague. — kwami ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Administrator note I agree that, amongst the similarities in edits, that all three have returned (from being dormant for 6 months or more) at about the exact same time. All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply