Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polllilur/Archive

01 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User's legitimacy has been questioned so they're resorting to IP in attempt to save their hoax articles. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Polllilur is now indeffed as a vandalism only account. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now unblocked after looking at some different edits. Peridon (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Considering that Pollilur is now unblocked (but hasn't edited since 1st March anyway), the sock account is already indeffed as such and there's no rule against editing whilst logged out (and no evidence to suggest the user is currently using this as a way of evading an exisiting block), I can't see that there's any reason to block this one IP. Closing; re-open if there are further problems. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

17 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Seringapatam has been displaying the exact same behavior as Polllilur - lots of hoaxes about obscure or nonexistent military campaigns. He has created over thirty articles of dubious verifiability; many have been speedily deleted. He is currently under a week-long block for an intensive period of disruption occurring earlier today. dci &#124;  TALK   22:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Quack. Indeffed both accounts, requesting CU to look for sleepers and providing diffs of two hoax articles created with the same edit summary by both accounts. Seringapatam, Pollilur  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, as are these two sleepers:
 * . WilliamH (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged, closing. Rschen7754 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

30 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Posting loads of obscure or possibly non-existent battles and/or wars. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CFrenchie1823 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Polllilur and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seringapatam Peridon (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked per WP:DUCK. If anyone thinks CU is advisable, be my guest. Peridon (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closed. Sockpuppets are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

04 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Only two edits at the time of posting, and both are one liners in the usual vein. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taskin_the_Great and compare to Polllilur and Seringapatam. I've not blocked as there are only two edits (so far). Anyone else, feel free. I've asked for CU, but won't worry if that's declined. I think there's a fairly clear quack. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've still got suspicions that this user isn't so new. His early (Polllilur) edit summaries ring a bell, but I can't think who it was that used very similar ones. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Brand new editor is creating 1-2 sentence stubs about wars in Siam, with no references. This describes all of Pollilur's accounts, Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

09 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user rapidly creating new articles about minor battles, in the same fashion as previous Polllilur socks User: Taskin the Great and User:Seringapatam. Note the years of the battles are in parentheses in the article titles, and note the unusual typography: the user tends to exclude a space after commas in edit summaries. - MrX 02:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) - MrX 02:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - New editor creating articles about Siamese conflicts almost invariably equals Polllilur. Checkuser is also especially warranted given that every time a CU is performed on a polll sock, sleepers are found. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, no sleepers this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Thank you DoRD. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

21 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Editor creating tons of hoax battle articles and has given a Wikilove message to one of Polllilur's recently blocked socks. FallingGravity (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC) FallingGravity (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked for quacking. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

23 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See Battle of Sarajevo - a battle I can't trace. Also created a hoax article about a history lecturer aged 11. This might give a clue..... Peridon (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ plus . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

28 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

More apparent military hoaxes following Pollliur's style, see Battle of Jungari. FallingGravity (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - No diffs provided; not convinced sleeper check is necessary. Anyone who reviews this feel free to overrule if you feel it's appropriate. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 03:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock. Account indeffed, IP given 1 month. Article deleted. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 03:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

30 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See the newly created article The Battle of Jungara, probably an attempt to recreate Battle of Jungari. FallingGravity (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' A bit of a departure from the usual Polllitur style. Very detailed. But it is a re-creation of Battle of Jungari. I think there's enough difference in style for a CU to be called for. This is a quacking sock at least of Fire2001dddbrown, but I'd be happier if they're both CU confirmed to Polllitur. (Fire2001dddbrown wasn't CUed.) Peridon (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the sockpuppet account indefinitely. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

17 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user creating short, obscure battle articles in the style of Polllilur. I have reported this to Peridon who is familiar with this sockmaster. I am logging this here for the record, and for any additional action that may be warranted. - MrX 03:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK. A checkuser look could be of use, as there may very well be more of them (see previous history). Peridon (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't help with the additional evidence request, since the sock's new articles have been nuked. Perhaps a someone with admin rights can review Cornwallis in India's contributions and compare them to the short battle articles created by Pollilur and his subsequent socks here and here. I think the similarities are fairly obvious. - MrX 00:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Could you elaborate in enough detail for a checkuser who is unfamiliar with this socker's style to understand? AGK [•] 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He creates articles that are mainly one or two liners about alleged battles or wars (largely but not exclusively in the 1700s and 1800s). Very few seem to have been of any note (probably even in their day - if they even happened), and most are unfindable in reliable sources. Some have survived, possibly because they were possibly notable, or because they've been overlooked. A lot of his output was as User:Seringapatam, but as User:Chechnya Freedom! he posted an article that might be a clue to the reasons behind his interests. (I took that one out for additional reasons to the hoax element...) This account gives me a clear quack. Peridon (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quack indeed, a ✅ sock of Polllilur. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Tagged. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

21 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same short old battle stubs. I blocked the Henry acct today, and the King of Atlantis one a month ago. INeverCry  17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Adding who just created Battles of the Heights five minutes after creating an account. - MrX 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks obvious. I've blocked the acct and deleted the page.  INeverCry   17:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. --Rschen7754 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

03 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user creating multiple, obscure battle articles such as Siege of Ceuta (1732) in the identical fashion of predecessor socks. Very obvious quack. - MrX 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The main SPI is at Sockpuppet investigations/Polllilur - Pollilur with two Ls is one of the earlier socks. The master has three. I'm not attempting to move things, not wanting to get into a mess... I've blocked per WP:DUCK on previous experience of this person. I would support a checkuser as there are quite likely to be sleepers. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Moved and merged. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * - - Comparing user history with previous socks, ,  and others, we see a distinct pattern.  I agree that a CU with sleeper check is likely warranted.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Painfully obvious duck, ✅, . WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

13 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New user creating very short, obscure battle articles such as Nijinomatsubara Rebellion in the identical style as Polllilur's previous socks. Please see archives, unless you're one of the many clerks and CUs familiar with this puppetmaster, in which case, enjoy the sonorous quacking. - MrX 20:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked via WP:DUCK. Will nuke edits as well.  Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)