Algis Kuliukas
- Algis Kuliukas ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Yloopx ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mvaneech ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- AlgisKuliukas ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
A variety of users have been pushing to include a new vanity press book on the aquatic ape hypothesis page. Algis Kuliukas ( talk · contribs) (who has a probably accidental second account at AlgisKuliukas ( talk · contribs)) is a co-editor of the book, and has been responsible for adding it to the page several times, [1], [2], [3] despite several reverts [4], [5], [6]. Other single purpose editors, mostly new, have similarly done so [7], [8], [9], along with ab IP address [10]. The interest from new registered accounts might simply reflect interest in the newly published book. Algis is presented as the sockmaster but it could be any of the accounts. Chakazul ( talk · contribs) is also a possible candidate here adding the book (though as part of a revert), also as an IP address as part of a revert, noted in the next diff). I think Chakazul's unlikely though.
This is based on an ANI posting, here, where a checkuser was suggested [11]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The named accounts appear
Unrelated to one another.
TN
X
Man
13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: Seems likely to be meatpuppetry, then. Closing with no action taken, but relist if they start edit warring or something. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Chakazul ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Yloopx ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cricetus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Timothy_Hugh_Smith ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- SamuelTheGhost ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The first four suspected socks have been either inactive until this month or are recent accounts. All have similarly odd editing behaviours, it seems either a case of meat puppetry or of sock puppetry. The accounts of Yloopx and Cricetus are recent account creations. All accounts appear to exhibit SPA behaviour. The accounts appear to be pushing for removal of content criticial of the Aquatic_ape_hypothesis and inserting favourable content [12] [13]. (The article has recently been downgraded of it's rating as a result of all the POV in the article [14]).
Both Algis Kuliukas and SamuelTheGhost engaged in trying to remove content by attacking the person who made the comments (not an editor but a paleoanthropologist) whilst not making policy based reasons, indicating a possible connection here between the two accounts perhaps [15] [16]. Also the two had strange sections in which only they responded [17] about the price of a book written by Algis Kuliukas on the article talk page. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- The only thing "odd" about this is that my response to "SamuelTheGhost's" criticisms (about the price) of the eBook is somehow interpreted as "sock puppetry".
- Please try to be accurate. The book was not written by me. I was a minor co-editor of a multi-author book, who wrote two and a half chapters. Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Chakazul has already voluntarily identified himself as the author of one of the chapters in User:Algis Kuliukas's e-book: [ [18]] Another user not listed here, User:Mvaneech, who was also involved identified himself as User:Algis Kuliukas's co-editor: [ [19]]. This editor has apparently stopped editing. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A cursory examination of my user history will show I have contributed constructively on other topics, and that my editorial contribution to the AAH article has been minimal and restrained. I am generally of the view that AAH is a theory on the ropes, and have made plain that I see some attempts at editing by proponents as insupportable; but I also feel that attempts by opponents to portray AAH as crank pseudoscience are presumptious - which is where, in a small way, I have weighed in. In the light of this fishing there is some irony that it is the proponents of AAH whom the article has attempted to brand as paranoid.
Timothy Hugh Smith (
talk)
22:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I welcome a checkuser. As far as I am concerned, the accusation merely demonstrates what a paranoid fool User:IRWolfie- is. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or that the sudden influx of SPA users here indicates either WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. That some of the editors already know each other outside wikipedia is already confirmed as Dominus Vobisdu highlighted. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. As a relatively newcomer, I imagined wikipedians share a common interest in writing informative and balanced WP articles, but apparently AAH is too controversial for this to work out. It is interesting that some editors who have repeatedly inserted non-RS material to criticize AAH have at the same time used all kinds of WP rules to stop others from citing RS material that is favorable to AAH. And now those of us who have expressed the opinion that AAH should be described (and not only criticized) in an article about AAH are being accused of sockpuppetry, as if it were inconceivable that several individuals could possibly wish to develop the AAH article into the same direction independently of each other. Cricetus ( talk) 01:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you check my user history, you'll notice that I started my career as a WP editor on something completely different, and have gradually been moving through topics I've been able to contribute something substantial on. I don't have time to work on more than one major WP project at a time, so after I saw what a pitiful state the AAH article was in, I've been trying to contribute to that one. Unfortunately this seems to have been wasted effort. Cricetus ( talk) 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty unusual that a subject that is deemed pseudoscience so uncritically by so many otherwise intelligent people, has a new, scholarly, scientific book published about it. Hey, maybe that's why there was suddenly so much interest in this page. Nah... must be a conspiracy, right IRWolfie!? Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- No such scientific book exists so I don't think so. I think it's highly coincidental that 3 new SPAs turn up within a short time of each other; I've edited many fringe articles and it is unusual, there advocacy of the same views suggests meat puppetry or sock puppetry. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, it is true. I am a researcher based at a well-respected National institution and was encouraged to join WP as a new editor having participated in an introduction to WP workshop about a month ago. I notice the WP guidelines encourage editors to be welcoming to new users and to show good faith. I've received very little of either since joining WP and have now twice been accused of being a sock puppet. It's as if supporting an open minded policy towards the aquatic ape hypothesis is considered a crime by some people. Good heavens! Yloopx ( talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As someone who rarely tries to edit Wikipedia pages, because I seldom think I am qualified to do so (this, note, is one of those rare exceptions) I seem to have created two accounts here, one - AlgisKuliukas, the other "Algis Kuliukas" over an extended period of time. It was a typo. I apologise. Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Another case plagued with statements such as "All have similarly odd behaviours" and "All accounts appear to exhibit SPA behaviour" with no supporting evidence for these statements. Can a clerk look the evidence that was provided over and write a shorter summary, please? The way I read it, the filer thinks the accounts are meatpuppets, in which case checkuser is not appropriate. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Administrator note After looking through this briefly, I do not see anything that warrants any admin action at this time. Being closely related IRL is not sock puppetry. --
MuZemike
18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Algis Kuliukas
- Algis Kuliukas ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Yloopx ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Mvaneech ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- AlgisKuliukas ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
A variety of users have been pushing to include a new vanity press book on the aquatic ape hypothesis page. Algis Kuliukas ( talk · contribs) (who has a probably accidental second account at AlgisKuliukas ( talk · contribs)) is a co-editor of the book, and has been responsible for adding it to the page several times, [1], [2], [3] despite several reverts [4], [5], [6]. Other single purpose editors, mostly new, have similarly done so [7], [8], [9], along with ab IP address [10]. The interest from new registered accounts might simply reflect interest in the newly published book. Algis is presented as the sockmaster but it could be any of the accounts. Chakazul ( talk · contribs) is also a possible candidate here adding the book (though as part of a revert), also as an IP address as part of a revert, noted in the next diff). I think Chakazul's unlikely though.
This is based on an ANI posting, here, where a checkuser was suggested [11]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The named accounts appear
Unrelated to one another.
TN
X
Man
13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: Seems likely to be meatpuppetry, then. Closing with no action taken, but relist if they start edit warring or something. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Chakazul ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Yloopx ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cricetus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Timothy_Hugh_Smith ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- SamuelTheGhost ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The first four suspected socks have been either inactive until this month or are recent accounts. All have similarly odd editing behaviours, it seems either a case of meat puppetry or of sock puppetry. The accounts of Yloopx and Cricetus are recent account creations. All accounts appear to exhibit SPA behaviour. The accounts appear to be pushing for removal of content criticial of the Aquatic_ape_hypothesis and inserting favourable content [12] [13]. (The article has recently been downgraded of it's rating as a result of all the POV in the article [14]).
Both Algis Kuliukas and SamuelTheGhost engaged in trying to remove content by attacking the person who made the comments (not an editor but a paleoanthropologist) whilst not making policy based reasons, indicating a possible connection here between the two accounts perhaps [15] [16]. Also the two had strange sections in which only they responded [17] about the price of a book written by Algis Kuliukas on the article talk page. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- The only thing "odd" about this is that my response to "SamuelTheGhost's" criticisms (about the price) of the eBook is somehow interpreted as "sock puppetry".
- Please try to be accurate. The book was not written by me. I was a minor co-editor of a multi-author book, who wrote two and a half chapters. Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Chakazul has already voluntarily identified himself as the author of one of the chapters in User:Algis Kuliukas's e-book: [ [18]] Another user not listed here, User:Mvaneech, who was also involved identified himself as User:Algis Kuliukas's co-editor: [ [19]]. This editor has apparently stopped editing. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A cursory examination of my user history will show I have contributed constructively on other topics, and that my editorial contribution to the AAH article has been minimal and restrained. I am generally of the view that AAH is a theory on the ropes, and have made plain that I see some attempts at editing by proponents as insupportable; but I also feel that attempts by opponents to portray AAH as crank pseudoscience are presumptious - which is where, in a small way, I have weighed in. In the light of this fishing there is some irony that it is the proponents of AAH whom the article has attempted to brand as paranoid.
Timothy Hugh Smith (
talk)
22:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I welcome a checkuser. As far as I am concerned, the accusation merely demonstrates what a paranoid fool User:IRWolfie- is. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 22:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or that the sudden influx of SPA users here indicates either WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. That some of the editors already know each other outside wikipedia is already confirmed as Dominus Vobisdu highlighted. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. As a relatively newcomer, I imagined wikipedians share a common interest in writing informative and balanced WP articles, but apparently AAH is too controversial for this to work out. It is interesting that some editors who have repeatedly inserted non-RS material to criticize AAH have at the same time used all kinds of WP rules to stop others from citing RS material that is favorable to AAH. And now those of us who have expressed the opinion that AAH should be described (and not only criticized) in an article about AAH are being accused of sockpuppetry, as if it were inconceivable that several individuals could possibly wish to develop the AAH article into the same direction independently of each other. Cricetus ( talk) 01:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you check my user history, you'll notice that I started my career as a WP editor on something completely different, and have gradually been moving through topics I've been able to contribute something substantial on. I don't have time to work on more than one major WP project at a time, so after I saw what a pitiful state the AAH article was in, I've been trying to contribute to that one. Unfortunately this seems to have been wasted effort. Cricetus ( talk) 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty unusual that a subject that is deemed pseudoscience so uncritically by so many otherwise intelligent people, has a new, scholarly, scientific book published about it. Hey, maybe that's why there was suddenly so much interest in this page. Nah... must be a conspiracy, right IRWolfie!? Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- No such scientific book exists so I don't think so. I think it's highly coincidental that 3 new SPAs turn up within a short time of each other; I've edited many fringe articles and it is unusual, there advocacy of the same views suggests meat puppetry or sock puppetry. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, it is true. I am a researcher based at a well-respected National institution and was encouraged to join WP as a new editor having participated in an introduction to WP workshop about a month ago. I notice the WP guidelines encourage editors to be welcoming to new users and to show good faith. I've received very little of either since joining WP and have now twice been accused of being a sock puppet. It's as if supporting an open minded policy towards the aquatic ape hypothesis is considered a crime by some people. Good heavens! Yloopx ( talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As someone who rarely tries to edit Wikipedia pages, because I seldom think I am qualified to do so (this, note, is one of those rare exceptions) I seem to have created two accounts here, one - AlgisKuliukas, the other "Algis Kuliukas" over an extended period of time. It was a typo. I apologise. Algis Kuliukas ( talk) 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Another case plagued with statements such as "All have similarly odd behaviours" and "All accounts appear to exhibit SPA behaviour" with no supporting evidence for these statements. Can a clerk look the evidence that was provided over and write a shorter summary, please? The way I read it, the filer thinks the accounts are meatpuppets, in which case checkuser is not appropriate. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Administrator note After looking through this briefly, I do not see anything that warrants any admin action at this time. Being closely related IRL is not sock puppetry. --
MuZemike
18:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)