The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Listsvery[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Listsvery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Whitstable (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Appears to be the same user, has been "conversing" with user:Pollypenhouse and asked for adoption within minutes of joining although appears to know Wikipedia quite well, operates similarly to banned user:iamandrewrice - who it seems is user:Pollypenhouse (despite protestations, that user shares the same birthdate as that on the MySpace of banned user)

Comments
You are suggesting I was holding a 'conversing' with myself?? how ridiculous, I am not even going to comment. And please stop using false information, as for all my searching, I found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that 'AndrewRice' and I share the same date of birth, which, even if we coincidentally did (which it is apparent that we do not anyway), I do not grasp your idea of how that makes us the same person. I am tiring of this, I am here to construct an encylopedia, not listen to your rambling romanticised ideas, Whitstable, of how 'Andrewrice' is working through I and this other user, to vandalise (oh yes, on that matter, it is apparent that I and Listsvery have vandalised oh so much isn't it?!!!!) so I suggest you get that checkuser done quickly so that I can have that tag removed from my page. And anyway, if you were following the 'Andrewrice' events clearly, you would now know that the user has officially applied to be un-banned. Well that is what I gather from reading his writings in any case. I would argue that you go and take a look at casting your decision on the unbanning of the real user, rather than being clumsy-handed and wasting vast amounts of my editing time simply to prove my innocence. And if you would like me to prove who I am, I can give you my facebook account if you wish it. But I am not 'adding you as a friend,' if that is what you would like, for firstly in addition to the fact that you have established yourselves in no way as anything clarificable as that, but I do not mix work with leisure, and I would expect no outside wikipedia links with someone I expected to work with withing the wiki-sphere. So please, as I mentioned, go hurry up with the checkuser, for you are not only choosing to wasting your time, but more importantly, you are forcing me to waste my time. Pollypenhouse (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with regards to how us two users met, it was from the fact that we both edited Swatch Internet Time, and this is where I found the suer. I do not know them in real life, let alone 'being' them, so please, next time you want to accuse someone, I suggest actually looking at ALL the evidence, not just the pieces you select. Whitstable, an additional comment to you, you deleted the message I left on your page, so I feel that only the same treatment will be due of you, so therefore, I do not wish to ever have a personal discussion with you, as I find you rude, oppinionated, and unintelligent, i am sorry to be so frank, but you continue to walk this route in such a manner that I am obliged to avoid any possibility of further coinciding with you, and having to hear your buzzing unsourced oppinions about me. So just do me a favour, and get the checkuser done quickly. Pollypenhouse (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One final thought: in looking through Listsvery's contribution history, I see he has been welcoming new users, often users who have yet to make a single contribution. I find it odd that a new user could find the new user log so quickly, and wonder if the users he has been welcoming are also socks. Jeffpw (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not true!!!!! You copied the exact same way I do MY references!!!!!! Pollypenhouse (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are so ignorant! It wasn't that user who did the IPA writing, it was ME!!!!!! GOD! At least get your contributions and evidence right! Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Likely Account blocked indefinitely, almost certainly yet another sockpuppet of banned vandal, Iamandrewrice. Note that the other account mentioned here was confirmed as Iamandrewrice. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked at RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More