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:Andyvphil[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Suspected sockpuppets

70.13.183.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Here Cometh the Milkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

Identical edits here, and here, and here.

<The first isn't an "identical edit"; the latter two are my reverting you and, after you undid my revert, another editor reverting you.Andyvphil (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

Talk page discussion here

<Strangely, same diff as first "identical edit". Andyvphil (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

These edits reinforce a previous history of edit warring and tendentious pursuit of POV regarding the "pushing" of stories related to Barak Obama's cultural and religious heritage. Andyvphil has been pursuing this agenda at several other Wikipedia articles, and has been shouted down in talk page discussion for heavily POV'd edits.

Accounts show identical, single issue politically tendentious editing and talk page patterns. WNDL42 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the suspected puppeteer could be either Insight magazine editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner (under one of the folowing accounts.

jkuhner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
publishtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

All three accounts have been trying to coatrack the Insight story angle on the Obama "madrassah" smear.
Repeated problem at a number of sites related to both the scandal and other media properties owned by the Unification Church (owner of Insight via News World Communications)
~~ I've never edited any article on any media property of the Moonies, except Insight.[1] I've provided this link to Wndl42 before, but he keeps asserting I'm a SPA. Andyvphil (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ~~[reply]
Comments

I welcome a checkuser on this wild assertion. WNDL42 has previously accused ME of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user:JKuhner -- oh, wait, I see he did it again here -- and has repeatedly spammed my talkpage with bogus 3RR and other warnings because of my opposition, across multiple articles (Journalism Scandals; Obama Campaign '08, etc.), to his insistance on strongly implying in Wikipedia's voice that Jeffrey T. Kuhner is known to have lied about having a source near the Clinton campaign for the assertion in Insight (magazine)'s that Clinton's opposition research had discovered that Obama had attended a madrassa. In fact, we know that Obama did not attend a madrassa, but we do not know that Kuhner lied about his source, a distinction that WNDL42 refuses to make, since he is insistent in pushing the BLP-violating POV that Kuhner smeared both Obama and Clinton at the behest of Insight 's indirect Moonie ownership. This has resulted in POV atrocities like the Kuhner entry at United_States_journalism_scandals 01:021 March 2008. I am not a sockpuppet (or a Moonie) nor have I ever edited under any other handle or ip since registering as Andyvphil, so it was hardly necessary for me to comment here, and I know all this detail is off-topic on this board, but WNDL42 is a very energetic POV warrior who seems to have more time for this than I can devote, so I could use some help. Volunteer interveners invited. Andyvphil (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t think anyone is a sockpuppet but I have also have problems with user:Andyvphil. He always uses weasel words and does not work towards consensus on the page or on talk. I don't really care who he is but I also have problems with his motives, on a regular and ongoing basis. Just check my history and you will see a massive number of edit rv-ing what were often anti-consensus edits by andyvphil, and which were always POV edits. I am not one for admin. action generally but i think his and mine, and wndl42's, histories all speak for themselves. I would just hope that this process would get him to stop, I have no desire to block anyone or see anyone lose their right to edit in good-faith. But andy is in constant violation of a good number of policies, and frankly I am a little sick of it- like using the talk as a pov forum- that needs to stop. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sick of you too, but that's off-topic here. I'd like to ask, however, that when you say something like "always uses weasel words" you provide a diff or, better, a quote. That way anyone interested could take a look at what you're misdescribing and conceivably save me the trouble and aggravation of making posts like this one. Andyvphil (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well my edit history for the last 2 weeks is essentially devoted to this topic, so I don't think its a big mystery whether your edits exist or not lol. honestly I think you should consider yourself lucky I am not trying harder to get you restricted, and leave it at that. WNDL42 took it to a level I do not operate much, but I think its hilarious to see you getting lecturing on two separate WP talk pages AND two separate admin violation pages, all on the same subject- consensus- which it seems is the one concept you are not in grasp of. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nb: Still no diffs for "always uses weasel words". And if you think that what is going on on this page is that I am "getting lectured" then what you "are not in grasp of" is any semblance of reality. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See related checkuser report on jkuhner here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/jkuhner WNDL42 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denied, unfortunately. Andyvphil (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as the Scots say, "Not Proven". Andyvphil (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More