Emnx

BEFORE you remove it again READ THE RULES. In the way you have implemented it I am entitled to remove it. UNTIL you implement it correctly (and I am certainly not going to tell you how) then I will continue to remove it.

Yes, EMNX is the account I have started using.

Yes I was editing under 81.157.73.83

Yes I started and account IP-81-157-73-83 to make a point about demeaning anon users but have closed it.

Sock Puppet: No.

To play Devil's Advocate I actually took OPPOSING views i.e. I added delete tags and saying the WHOLE article should be deleted! rather than argue to keep it together.

Hardly the actions of someone trying to bolster an argument but making identical arguments.

IPSOS has openly admitted that following vandalism of his user page he is using Mandrake Press as the battleground? Why?

You made no disclosure that you were editing as both User:Emnx and as the IP address. That's sockpuppetry to give the appearance of greater support for your position. I have not said that I am making a battle of this because of your vandalism to my user page. That is simply what attracted my attention to the article. I have provided arguments for my position which I believe to be the best solution to the problem of the two different companies being promoted under the title Mandrake Press. IPSOS (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert this page. If you don't know how to apply the procedure correctly that is your problem. However, in the circumstances, I AM ENTITLED TO REMOVE IT! You perhaps need to research your robotic application of guidance as immutable rules before you apply them incorrectly yet again.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx

Copied from Yamla so that the matter can be discussed here rather than on Yamla

Please add replies after the following :-

---

Hi, do you have time to look at this sockpuppetry case? I've post on WP:AN/I but have gotten no response. The suspect has admitted the use of multiple accounts/ips but pretends he did nothing wrong. At least somebody should have a word with him? IPSOS (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome a NPOV but I fear you will not wish to become embroiled in this 'war' being waged by IPSOS.

Simple facts

IPSOS has offensive material on his user page. He has been asked a number of times in the past, by other editors, to tone it down - he refuses to do so. The last occasion was by an admin who wrote :

The content of the section titled "Problem with Wikipedia" in your user page might be considered offensive to some Wikipedians. It is also likely to bring the project into disrepute. I understand that you should have latitude to express your opinions in your user page, but please, can you tone it down a bit? :-) Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

I vandalised his user page (edited the offensive material) and was blocked. Shouldn't have done it, was wrong to do it, but wanted to draw attention to it.

IPSOS since then has conducted an edit was on the Mandrake Press article and has openly admitted he is using this article to carry out a personal vendetta because I edited his USER PAGE

"Why do you want to split it? . . . 81.157.73.83 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

"Because you've been vandalising my user page. . . . IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

IPSOS removed most of my comments on his talk page and then archived his talk page to permanently hide them and prevent others from accessing them to see what really went on! Not the actions of someone who wishes to be open and transparent in his Wikipedia dealings.

A user wrote on the Mandrake Press discussion page

For goodness sake the pair of you, take this discussion to one another's user talk pages and get it off this article talk page. If one of you took the decision to retain a dignified silence it would immediately make the other look like a silly ranter, but I doubt either of you will take that option... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS fell right into it and became the silly ranter. He just had to post a comment and have the last word :-

I'm done. I may be slow, but it has become clear that Emnx doesn't really want to discuss the article, but only wants to continue to grind an axe. IPSOS (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Sock Puppet, never have been. Not a blocked user account either. Just an occasional anon editor who recently took an account to make my identity clear and consistent.

Finally, I note he has made numerous edits and been working really hard on Mandrake of Oxford a rival and competitor to Mandrake Press Ltd. and I just wonder what his real motivation in all this is?

Basically this whole affair is a candidate for WP:LAME

best wishes--Emnx 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The accusations continue: he accused David 85.210.212.145 06:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) on Talk:Mandrake Press who responded with

Just so everyone is clear, the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation and had IPSOS bothered to spend two minutes to run a WHOIS query on my IP address and the other person's IP address he would have seen that we're using two different ISPs. Please remember that while it may appear that unregistered users are trying to hid something, they actually have less anominity that registered users. David 85.210.231.207 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He has now posted this on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx

most likely culprit (real puppetmaster)

• Whateley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This vandal seems obsessed with a message on my user page. The only user likely to be concerned with it would be Whateley23, whose last edit before the two users were created was this one.

I am not David 85.210.231.207 06:22 or Whateley23 (or some other user account) I am just faced with a silly ranter with offensive material on his user page and whose user page and antics bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The only think I am guilty of is trying help build a better online encyclopedia.--Emnx 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• UPDATE

I pointed out above that :-

. . . I note he (IPSOS) has made numerous edits and been working really hard on Mandrake of Oxford a rival and competitor to Mandrake Press Ltd. and I just wonder what his real motivation in all this is?

another editor seems to agree that there's something wrong here :-

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Mandrake of Oxford by Coldmachine 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC) i.e. It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: Commercial advertisement

--Emnx 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

this is hilarious! his best evidence that i'm your puppetmaster is that i disagreed with him about how to cite something, and that i posted about that disagreement to "lame edit wars". after i'd posted that, i forgot all about him, so i wasn't sure who "IPSOS" was. i had to click on these links to see who it was who was making that accusation. anyway, unless you're on Qwest DSL, i'm sure that a check of the ip addresses will clear that up. still, i suppose i should say something. Whateley23 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well your reputation stands besmirched so you should clear that up at the very least? As to Qwest DSL I've never even heard of it and it certainly isn't my ISP. I assume you are aware that you are the focus of the his User Page diatribe about hyphenated names — I only discovered the connection with you an hour or so ago — anyway, I found the material offensive in general and thought it brought Wikipedia into disrepute and the rest is history! best wishes--Emnx 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

the edit wars

This is the fourth edit-war IPSOS has engaged in since April. Nuff said?--Emnx 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for one month for malicious sockpuppetry, as established in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx. Please note that such violations are not tolerated here. MaxSem 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned and IPSOS continues on

Here is Whateley23 post to IPSOS

THIS IS A QUOTATION

Interesting

you're pretty obsessive. i had completely forgotten about you, and now i find that you're accusing me of being a puppetmaster for a sock? that you've included a comment on your main infopage about a lame edit war (and, by the way, looking at the very LOC cite you gave, i find that all three forms of citation are in evidence there: Evans Wentz, W.Y., Evans-Wentz, W.Y., and Wentz, W.Y. Evans; that would seem to weaken both your case and your need for obsessiveness)? i note that you don't include your escalating, fraudulent claim on your infopage, as well - why are you afraid to show in how badly of a light you've painted yourself? are you ashamed of your behavior? really, dude, think about how far you're going over a minor difference of opinion. you should go get some perspective. have sex with your girl- or boy-friend. watch a sunset. do something besides obsess over someone you've never met, with whom you've had an insignificant (and ended) online argument. Whateley23 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IPSOS of course removed it from his talk page and left this response on Whateley23 talk page

THIS IS A QUOTATION

Please don't

Please don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. P.S. you haven't an effing clue about exactly what a double-barreled name is and why it is listed the way it is. You are trying to work from sources which you are misinterpreting. A catalog will attempt to assist the ignorant to find what they want even when they don't know what the actual last name is. Doh! IPSOS (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS A QUOTATION

coward. deleting any discussion which might be unfavorable to you? and you are wrong about citing. i have no idea why this is such a serious subject for you, either way. Whateley23 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Emnx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason is simple. This block merely treats the symptom and not the problem. First, someone needs to deal with IPSOS who is the cause of the problem. He has had four edit wars in 8 weeks (See Above). Furthermore I don't have static IP and when challenged and demeaned by an editor because I was anon I created a user account with my IP address prefixed with the letters 'IP' just to make a point that the skin changed nothing regarding the discussion or content. I immediately closed that account (stopped using it). After that I created an account and stuck with it. At no time did I use different identities to support the same view -- in fact just the opposite. However someone should really do something about IPSOS, his offensive user page that brings Wikipedia into disrepute and his aggressive editing.--Emnx 08:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx says it all, I think. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block extension

Given the convincing evidence of further sockpuppetry during your block (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)) I have extended your block to 3 months. MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Further activity

Emnx, if you continue block evasion with anon IPs, such as 86.131.34.82, your block will be extended even more. Please calm down and serve your block without violations. MaxSem 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

IPSOS (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Damaging the credibility of AfDs

Hi, allegations of sockpuppetry which continue to plague your account only serve to damage valid and legitimate AfD such as the one which I opened for Mandrake of Oxford. While we may be in agreement on the principle of the AfD, I object to your methods and wish to publicly distance myself from them. If you are interested in a fair hearing for an AfD then I suggest you abide by the terms of the administrator block and cease opening new puppet accounts. Coldmachine^Talk 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Block extended

Your block have been extended to one year due to further block evasion, as established by second part of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx, and campaign of hate against IPSOS and GlassFET you waged, c.f. this RfC. MaxSem 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)