Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:Mobile 01

[edit]
→ This is hardly "a spelling correction." Athænara ✉ 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No conflicting edits, no illigitimate use, no coercion, no vote rigging. Dont think this rates as sock puppetry, just not logging on properly.

  • 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)This user formatted a table and fixed up spelling on the bridgestone article. Made 3 edits to dicussion page on firestone article to answer some questions. No conflict, No edit reverting, no illigitimate usage apart from some misunderstanding when they first became an editor about over linking and not understanding why edits kept vanishing. Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry.

All of the above editors, anons and myself have done nothing that warrants a sock puppet enquiry. While I have made a few errors due to lack of understanding on content forking that is all. The rest of this page is just a witch hunt by a user who I am in conflict with over the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. Mobile 01Talk 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

[edit]

At the bottom of this page you will find a new user User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All possibly a sockpuppet of User:Travb has started to add unsupported accusations, sarcasm and abuse towards me and the integrity of this pages purpose. I have also been threatened by another associate of User:Travb on my talk page. Mobile 01Talk 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome you too file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Travb. All the other baseless accusations have nothing to do with the suspected sock puppets of User:Mobile 01. Travb (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence

[edit]

New evidence after User:Mobile 01 acknowledged multiple anon accounts. (see above)[1] Travb (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont twist my words Travb, I aknowledged that I had inadvertently not logged on and thus my edit to an admin page was signed as an ANON. I did not say that I had used ANON accounts to edit the Firestone Page. You are twisting the facts to suit your own motives and it is a further example of how far you will go to attack my credibility. As all edits by me do not overlap nor do they attempt to gain support for a POV or attempt to rig a vote or violate any illigitimacy rules covered by sockpuppetry, your continued vendetta against me is starting to look very personal.Mobile 01Talk 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mobile 01 I am not User:203.49.235.50
[edit]

User:Mobile 01 denies being User:203.49.235.50:

"This user is from the other side of the country. They have made a few edits on the same pages, probably linked to what I was editing via the history of Smallville edits. I do the same myself when I check the history of a page and see an issue going on, I often go check out other things that user edits" [2]
"I live in Adelaide (think of it as where Dallas is) now one of the anons you try to link me to is from Sydney (think of that as New York)."[3]

Edit history of User:Mobile 01 and User:203.49.235.50:

00:28, 14 December 2006 User:Mobile_01 uploaded [4]
User:203.49.235.50 00:32, 14 December 2006 Adds File:100logo.gif to the Firestone page [5] which User:Mobile 01 Uploaded four minutes before.
User:203.49.235.50 creates a table,[6][7], ending on 00:32, 14 December 2006.
Twelve minutes later, at 00:44, 14 December 2006 User:Mobile 01 continues to edit the table [8]

Block history of 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

05:14, 16 October 2006 User:Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) blocked "203.49.235.50 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Disruption) [9]

Block on User talk:203.49.235.50: [10]

Complaint on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

User has been linking everything on a Smallville (Season 6) episode plot summary. The policy on wikilinking was explained to the user by two other editors, but the user continues to revert back to his edits.[11]

Later partial mea culpa by User:Mobile 01 in regards to 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry [12]

Travb (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mobile 01 I am not User:NeilinOz1
[edit]

User:Mobile 01: "As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them." [13]

User:Mobile 01 Acknowledges that 211 numbers are hers [14]

211.29.2.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs comment on Talk:Smallville (season 6) as: NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[15]

User:Mobile 01 again first denies this is her:

FYI, My ISP is OPTUSNET, Optus is the second biggest ISP in Australia next to Telstra. Every account holder of Optusnet has an IP address that starts with 211.29.??.??.[16]

Then User:Mobile 01 admits:

RE: User:211.29.2.233:
"Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her" [17]
RE: User:NeilinOz:
"Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry."[18]

Signed, Travb (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, My ISP is OPTUSNET, Optus is the second biggest ISP in Australia next to Telstra. Every account holder of Optusnet has an IP address that starts with 211.29.??.??. Mobile 01Talk 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refers to herself in the third person
[edit]

As per Bobblehead below:

The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01.[19] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[20] The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.-- Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the rest of this message, I see the explanation has been deleted.Mobile 01Talk 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#Third_opinion Travb (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on abuse
[edit]

User:MrDarcy[21]:


Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite possibly true, but what does two anon edits by employees of Bridgestone in Nashville USA have to do with me here in Australia. It seems to me that the user Travb is indeed trying to use the Chewbacca Defence.Mobile 01Talk 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymond arritt [22]

Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you on that point especially if I lived in Nashville USA. But unfortunately as I live on the other side of the world it would be hard to be a sockpuppet of those Bridgestone Employee Editors.Mobile 01Talk 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mobile 01 quoted User:LucaZ for backing up her version of the edits [23]:


Wikipedia:Third opinion member User:Athaenara[24][25]:



Signed: Travb (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by Bridgestone on Firestone and Bridgestone
[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Factual inconsistencies of User:Mobile 01 and her intentions on wikipedia
[edit]

See also #Another opinion below.

States there are no Firestones in Australia
[edit]

You may also note that I spell Tyre differently to the American spelling Tire. This should indicate to you that I am not from the USA. I am actually from Australia. We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand.[26]

But later states that she was aware that Bridgestone was in Australia
[edit]

Explaining how she started to edit these pages:

05:44, 11 January 2007 "One day I got shunted to the Bridgestone page and noticed that the information was way out of date and had nothing about the Australian factories. being an old time tyre fan from way back I did some research on the plants and updated the article."[27]

Response of Mobile 01
[edit]

In response, Mobile 01 wrote:

[28]

Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone in as per: Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company#Sale_to_Bridgestone

Keep in mind: Bridgestone and Firestone are the same company now. So what Mobile 01 is writing is this:


[29]

In other words, what User:Mobile 01 appears to be saying is that Bridgestone tire company does not actually make Bridgestone tires.

And the repeated New Zealand claim? Type in "new zealand firestone" in google, and what comes up first? www.bridgestone.co.nz/

On the New Zealand Bridgestone page, the article says:

  • 1988 Bridgestone/Firestone company formed to become the largest tyre company in the world.[30]
  • 2003 Name change to Bridgestone New Zealand Ltd
Actually there are several Bridgestones in Australia
[edit]

Mobile 01: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand."[[31]

List of Bridgestones headquarters in Australia:

http://www.bridgestone.com.au/contact/

Head Office
GPO Box 2200,
Adelaide, SA 5001
196 Greenhill Road
Eastwood, SA 5063
Telephone: +618 8206 0200
Facsimile: +618 8206 0299
E-mail: [email protected]

Mobile 01 is from Adelaide, the same city with the Bridgestone head office.[32]

On the side of the tyre in Big letters is the word BRIDGESTONE. You can tell that this does not say firestone as it starts with a B. Now still with our glasses on we will go look at a Firestone tyre. Note the different arrangement of letters. F.I.R.E.S.T.O.N.E, this does not spell Bridgestone. So what Mobile01 is saying is exactly what she originally said and not the newly edited version. Let me reiterate that Bridgestone Australia is a company listed on the Australian stock exchange. This means that is not owned by Bridgestone but by shareholders. If Bridgestone owns Firestone then that has no relevance to BSAL (Bridgestone Australia Ltd) which brands its tyres as BRIDGESTONE under licence. This is primarily why I edit the article and the start of this edit was by Travb over my trying to include separation between Firestone USA subsidiary of Bridgestone, and Firestone International such as Europe and New Zealand. The negative comments that the edit war is about all relate to Firestone USA, I have been trying to show that these do not apply to the rest of the Firestone organisation nor to Bridgestone Corporate Japan and especially not to Australia which isnt even owned by Bridgestone Copr Japan. Mobile 01Talk 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Therefore, Firestone ceased to be Firestone, it became Bridgestone.
Lets look at the web, type "firestone" in google what is the first entry?: www.bridgestone-firestone.com/ click on the link, what do you find, a big Bridgestone emblem. Your misreprestations of simple, easily confirmed facts is troubling.
With one of your anon accounts, on the Bridgestone talk page, in response to the Ford scandal and the largest tire recall in history, you wrote:
This topic is well covered in its own article as well as in the Firestone Tire and Rubber article.[33]
So why are you yourself refering to Firestone on the Bridgestone page? Yet in other locations you say they are different companies. Why?
Again, Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Travb (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Travb, I'm not sure if your dilliberately playing dumb or what your problem is with understanding simple english. So one again I will explain it to you. It's getting a little tedious as it's been explained in so many ways and you still seem to be having difficulty with such a simple concept.

My statement was "We dont have Firestone in Australia, the closest is in New Zealand" end of quote.

Bridgestone Australia is a publicly listed company on the Australia stock exchange, it is not owned by Bridgestone.

Bridgestone Australia does not manufacture Firestone Tyres in it's plant.

Firestone New Zealand also a publicly listed company until 2003 was bought by Bridgestone. Tyres manufactured at teh New Zealand plant are badged as FIRESTONE. As far as I can find out, they do not manufacture Bridgestone branded tyres.

While Bridgestone may well have bought Firestone, the article in question Firestone Tire and Rubber Company is predominantly about the companies origins in the USA before they were bought by Bridgestone. My reference on the Bridgestone page explain that the topics mentioned were already covered on the firestone article and do not belong on the Bridgestone page. If we were to merge the two articles so as to have one big Bridgestone article, a lot of this information would get lost. Firestone problems before Bridgestone bought them out would become irrelevant and so it is better to keep the articles separate so these topics can be fully explored from a NPOV.

While the parent company is Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone still operates it's subsidieries as seperate companies for tax reasons and to abide by international law and the laws of the countries it operates in. The American subsidiary operates under the title of "Bridgestone/Firestone North America Holdings".

Your logic appears to imply that we should not have separate articles for companies if they are owned by a parent. KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut are all owned by Yum yet we have separate articles for them.

Please dont ask me to explain this to you anymore. Mobile 01Talk 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

[edit]
Believes a sock puppet exists because two editors in Australia both like watching the TV program Smallville.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So: Re: "Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine. Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007" 211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are all yours. In addition, we have a Bridgestone employee in Ohio deleting the same sections as you are. (See below).
This was when I used my brothers computer to send a message to an admin. I corrected to signature next time I logged in from home. he uses the same ISP, hence the same starting numbers.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably all me, my PC is supposed to log me on automatically but sometimes it doesn't. I don't always notice I am not logged in and this causes my edits to appear as ANON.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user is from the other side of the country. They have made a few edits on the same pages, probably linked to what I was editing via the history of Smallville edits. I do the same myself when I check the history of a page and see an issue going on, I often go check out other things that user edits.

Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them.

I notice in the rules for sock puppets that an account is not considered a sock puppet unless used for illigitamate purposes. While my unfortunate mistakes with ANON editing are annoying, there was nothing illigitimate about any of my edits while using the ANON signin.
Mobile 01 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company. I started this page by copying the content of the protected page and began editing it to remove USA Specific content and adding International content. I never got to finish it because when I went back the next day, user Travb had initiated a complaint to have it deleted.

I also found an old article Firestone which was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, as The word Firestone relates to more than just tires, I edited this article to show the many articles within Wiki that are about Firestone, including Firestone High School, Firestone Golf Club, plus numerous people named Firestone. I have now been informed that this is also incorrect and that a Firestone Disambiguation page is where that belongs. Unfortunately there is not a lot on that page and you cant edit it to add more. I found many instances throughout Wiki where key words for Firestone had been redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Even Bridgestone Firestone was redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company rather than to the Bridgestone article. I fixed up all the articles I could find thus leaving Firestone Tire and Rubber Company as a semi orphan that was reachable by direct entry of the name, or by link from the parent topic of Firestone rather than every firestone keyword redirecting the user to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I have now been told by an Admin that this was also not allowed. I have tried in good faith to fix these problems with the articles and am now being personally attacked at every corner by user Travb. See his personal vendetta page at User talk:Travb/m Frankly if this is how an editor of Wiki is treated then what's the point of trying to improve the articles if another user just reverts all your work and then gets Admins to protect his version of an article while he sets about a personal attack of you on all fronts.
Mobile 01 11:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

While it is apparent that all the accounts and anon's provided are run by the same person (similar editing patterns and interests), I'm only seeing two "minor" instances where there's a violation of WP:SOCK and one definite violation, so I'm not sure an indefinite block is warranted, perhaps a good hand slap and a promise not to do it again. There isn't any overlap in editing periods between Mobile, LucaZ, and NeilinOZ1 and the only questionable edit between accounts is where Mobile 01 added a comment to a comment string LucaZ also commented in. As for the anon's there are overlaps in editing periods, but the questionable edits is when Mobile reverted Firestone after Woohookitty sprot'd the page, but I'm not sure content forking was a valid reason to protect this page as it does appear Mobile was setting up a dab page and not a fork.[34] The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01.[35] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[36] The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.--Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to explain earlier, the message to User_talk:Woohookitty was written at my brothers house and I was not logged in, I deliberatley used the third person so as not to appear as an impersonator. I corrected this immediately when I got home and logged in as me. I do not believe that I have done anything wrong here and have only been acting in good faith to try and stop a Wiki Bully from ruining what could be a good article. I don't know who user LucaZ or NeilinOz1 are and they both seem to have stopped editing in Wiki anyway. I have admitted that the ANONs are all mine and have redirected those talk pages to my own. Not sure what else I can do. I have done nothing illigitimate nor disruptive in any of my edits to warrant this personal attack. Mobile 01 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also posted:
Section removed, as it had nothing to do with the merits of this case. Thatcher131 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Obsessive Hounding of Mobile 01 by Travb

[edit]

The pursuit here, and more troubling at User:Travb/m is becoming a bit over-the-top, and frankly, a little scary. Here's what was said at the AN/I board about the issue:

". . . You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)" (excerpted in part)

"Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk • contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"

"I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"

The full text can be found here. The amount of time this user has poured into compiling his "evidence" at User:Travb/m is deeply troubling. Perhaps a cooling-off period is warranted. Morton DevonshireYo 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an unfortunate and inaccurate characterisation (which supports User:Mobile 01's eager descents to the argumentum ad hominem in attempting to discredit those who question violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the spotlight here) of a hard-working Wikipedian who has been working alone to protect an article in which few editors have been interested. Athænara ✉ 17:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two other editors, not involved with examination of this sock puppet ordeal, have adopted a position entirely in league with this characterization. The whole reason, I, an outsider got pulled into this affair was discovering the aggressive nature which TravB has pursued this business, and as I learned, poorly characterized Mobile 01's attempts to engage in a discussion on his talk page, which lead to the above. This whole article would be better served by both parties admitting to mistakes, and seeking to forgive each other, rather than waste time and energy to attack. In essence, this represents the very worse of Wikipedia, not an attempt to establish the very best. As is, the whole Firestone issue probably could have been settled in a better way, through mediation, rather than one editor resorting to attempting to kick out another. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Mobil01's unilateral actions such as "The liberian controvesy while interesting does not belong on this page. This is a page about Firestone, what it does, and it's history in the USA. I have created a new article Liberian Controvesy which has been placed in the correct WIKI area for such a topic." and Mobile01's attempts to scuttle valid sourced criticism of the company, Trav's conduct, while not exemplary, is not unusual either. IMHO, the article should go to mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read Mobil01's admissions above - that section staring with : "I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company.". Firestone International is an accounting (?) firm Firestone International. There is no corporate tire entity called 'Firestone International'. This and other redirects were such flagrant violations of WP, and (IMHO) blatant attempts to hide crticism under names NO ONE would look for them under, that I actually applaud Trav for showing the good faith and restraint that he did. - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor's Diamond Mines 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no corporate entity called Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which is an old name from before this company in the USA was purchased by Bridgestone Corporation. From my research I have found that the company is now called Bridgestone Firestone North America Holdings. My article titled Firestone International was supposed to encapsulate the International divisions of this company. Firestone have plants in Europe and New Zealand plus land holdings and plantations including Liberia. If thats not interational I dont know what is.
Your point seem to be that my edits and creation of the page would take information away and hide it where no one would look for it, which in fact is the exact opposite of what I achieved. I actually changed a parent article Firestone which originally was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and changed it to include all firestone related articles. This included the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and the newly created Firestone International as well as links to the founder of firestone, firestone High school, firestone golf club, firestone radio show etc etc. My point was that if anyone looked or searched for Firestone all they got directed to was Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I even added further links to the liberian controvesy and ford rollover criticisms on the Firestone page. Go check it out and then continue your diatribe. Some have called it content forking, a term which I do not believe is appropriate in this case. If anything my new articles and Firestone page was actually Un-Content Forking and provided the wiki user with a greater ability to find information than before. My comment about my edits effectively orphaning the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are taken out of context. My implication with that comment is that instead of everything currently redirecting to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company regardless of whether it should or not, my edit prevented that article from a monopoly of "Firestone" the word, and made access to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company come directly from the parent Firestone article, this being a choice the wiki searcher had made rather than had forced upon them. I dont belive what I did was wrong but have appologised many times already for it none the less. I have tried to enter ito discussion with this Travb, I have nicely requested he cease his vendetta, I have tried to answer all points raised by him and other editors. I have tried to remain courteous at all times. While my comments may appear to Travb as NPA they are not, they have been about his editing style and POV content. I do not know what else I can do to end this, the page is still protected and as Travb refuses to enter into discussion on it, will probably remain so indefinately. Mobile 01Talk 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Firestone Tire and Rubber Company no longer exists as a independent and distinct corporate entity is not germaine to the fact that the DID exist, and the Firestone 'brand name' is still used. Pan_Am_World_Airways doesn't exist AT ALL and Wiki still has an article on them. Just curious - why would you choose to create the article 'Firestone International', a non existent entity, rather than the very real Firestone Natural Rubber? I look forward to working with you and Trav after he gets back from Wikivacation, and encourage you to seek mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I do feel the article is quite unbalanced. Firestone was one the more important brands PERIOD, in the USA up until they had the problems with the 500, and the section from the founding up until this date, should be greatly expanded. To cover 1900 - 1975 in two short paragraphs (especially the first) is nothing less than a travesty. Lots of good info here 100 Years of Firestone - Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone Historians 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morton, please see this comment on your archived talk page: [37], asking you to stop your involvment with this case, which you have never been involved with before this checkuser. You have read this message[38].
Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.
Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.
Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.
Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page==== Careful Travb, that statement could almost be libellous.

An unidentified editor using an ISP traced to Bridgestone has been editing wikipedia.

[edit]

See: User talk:199.48.25.10 User talk:199.48.25.11 This employee has deleted the same sections as User:Mobile 01. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're connecting an employee in Ohio, who made four edits on November 16, 2006, to a person who lives in Australia, and did not start making edits until December 6, 2006. A quick comparison of edits did not seem to indicate any type of exact similarity between the two. If anything, it appears as if User 199.48.25.10 was just a Bridgestone employee who was accessing the page, just like User talk:199.48.24.11, who accessed the page the same day (and also of Bridgestone). A glance at the edit history of the page indicates that you have a different interpretation of what belongs on the Firestone page versus what Mobile 01 had in mind. The regrettable thing is that from an outsider's perspective, a good article could be created by the combination of what you both want for the page, but instead it descended into a useless edit war and drove you to find some means to remove Mobile 01 from the picture. I say drop this nonsense and cooperate on merging both of these visions of Firestone.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from what I just read here, my assumption would be that user LucaZ was an employee of Bridgestone USA who had earlier tried to edit the firestone page and then came back 5 minutes later under his own login. So that would mean that I jumped on a plane and moved to Australia just so I could sockpuppet myself away from LucaZ and edit a Bridgestone article that LucaZ never edited at all. I put my user page up to clarify a few things to Travb about where I live and why I edit Bridgestone and Firestone. Bridgestones head office is in the same city as me, so what. My father used to work for them. so what. User Travb edits articles about America, a quick check on the net shows that user Travb lives in America. Oh No Conspiracy. Mobile 01Talk 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence thus far simply shows that employees of Bridgestone edited this disputed page. Travb (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you connect Mobile 01 to these edits, if they're Bridgestone employees?~ (The Rebel At) ~ 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question RebelAt as to why user Travb would try to connect an employee of Bridgestone in Nashville USA with me in Australia, see Chewbacca Defence.
Mobile 01Talk 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated several times to you, "WP:NPA: Comment on the editor, not the edit." Please start abiding by wikirules. Travb (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

[edit]

I am just starting to look into these charges and allegations, but IMHO Mobile1's contibutions do not jibe with someone who has only a casual, non affiliated interest in Bridgestone and Firestone, because her father worked for the factory. Use the 'reasonable man' (or woman) theory. Would someone who only had a casual relationship with a company ( a 'fan' if you will) upload nine images of an obscure Bridgestone product to Wikipedia, and write a PR-sounding puff piece on the product ? Bridgestone Rubber Dams M1 uploads 9 corporate images It just doesn't wash. Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE : Rubber dam is 100% copyvio pilfered from Bridgestone, and the article itself a redirect from the more usual 'rubber dam' as used to describe a dental product. Fishy..... Very Fishy. Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the original version of that page it was very boring and outdated. I started editing it to make it more interesting. I went to the bridgestone site and found out about a whole new product I had never heard of so I thought it would be a good piece to put in the article. I also added about Bridgestone Golf products and bicycles which were not mentioned on the article either. I also found some pictures over on the Bridgestone Web site too and some generic ones around the web which I thought would make the article more appealing and generally pretty it up, to make sure it was OK, I emailed Bridgestone in Japan to ask permission to use their images, unfortunately I never got a reply, I changed the images to low res which I belive meets with the upload image policy, if that is not correct I can remove them.

Are you Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers contending that every editor of wikipedia must have some direct link to the topic they edit or else they wouldnt bother?. Your argument seems to be that because I edit a page I must therefore have some hidden adgenda. Following your logic of the 'reasonable man' theory, would any editor in wikipedia spend hours working on articles that was only a fan. I would ask the writers of Movie and TV show articles if being a fan of something is a valid reason to want to improve it. I am sure 95% of article editors do so because they are a fan or have an interest in the topic they wrote about. For that matter, your user name suggests you have a direct interest in the specific edit being questioned by Travb on the firestone page, one could surmise then that you must have more than a casual interest in placing your comments here.

User Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers If you have a problem with my edit on the Rubber damn product because it is too close to the text on the bridgestone site, then I am quite happy to rewrite it in my own new words. Its been there for a while and no one has complained about any edits I have made to that page that I am aware of. Mobile 01Talk 12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cause people feel the same way about tyres (tires) and corporate entities as they do.... say... about Johnny Depp or Cameron Diaz. Righto! Fairness And Accuracy For Vegimite Lovers 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the writers of the General Motors, Ford, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Nintendo, Microsoft etc etc articles are all written by employees or by Johnny Depp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile 01 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update : Mobile1's Rubber Dam (made by Bridgestone no less) article was deleted for violating Bridgestone copyright. M1, I apologize for accusing you of 'pilfering' the text from Bridgestone. As you are quite likely a Bridgestone employee, you are probably authorized to use their text. Posting Bridgestone PR and puffery to Wikipedian might even be part of your job description! (by the way....I need new tires, can you get me a discount? None of those crappy exploding 500's tho! - I want Potenzas!) Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone 500 Victims 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to this article that was deleted for copywrite, I cant find any trace of the article you are referring too. My edit was to a section on the Bridgestone Article to a sub section called diversified products. As far as I know it is still there. Be careful with your accusations too, Travb would say you are close to a WP:NPA
Mobile 01Talk 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying the multiple contributions, using Bridgestone written text, you made to the now-deleted Rubber dam article? That seems to be the case. Are you saying that you made no such edits, and your edits concerning Bridgestone Rubber Dams were only to the main Bridgestone article? I want to be clear on this. Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Mobile 01 accuses us of being sock puppets above Fair :)[39] I am rather offended, because I think I am a much better editor. ;-) You are probably offended for the same exact reason :)
Also, if you look at Firestone all of User:Mobile 01, her one confirmed sock, and her several anons, all major additions, to my knowledge, have been corporate websites she links too. Travb (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I went over Mobile 01's edits from the start to finish and found no article entitled Rubber Dam. Are deleted articles removed from the contribution list? If not, then why is this article been thrown at their feet? A second point of interest, this new accuser has a visible interest in child labor in Liberia, hence the name Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers. At the same time, Travb, has shown a strong interest in the topic, as it has been a subject he has sought to include in the main Firestone page. While certainly not a case of sock puppetry, this opinion is certainly slighted to favor Travb in this situation.
Furthermore, any criticism towards an individual for having "odd" or "unusual" interests, such as interests in a corporation, is completely unacceptable. No one has any position to dictate what is and what isn't acceptable in terms of personal interests, especially on Wikipedia where thousands of articles would not exist if not for the specific interest of one or two individuals on certain topics. What I find most dismaying about this case is the amazing aggressiveness to prosecute it, almost an eagerness to make this the final salvo of a vendetta that began in an editing war. Then now with this recent inclusion, veritable name calling, just makes the business all the more rotten. I have no personal attachment to Mobile 01, but the nature of this attack certainly has established a sympathy for them. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
→ Deletion log for Rubber Dam article —Æ. ✉ 18:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the points you're missing here: User:Fairness And Accuracy For All frequently varies the text through which his user ident is piped. Just another creative Wikipedian keeping things interesting while also keeping the focus on what this procedural discussion is actually about: principles, policies, and guidelines, not personalities and conspiracies. Athænara ✉ 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't miss that point. Since I had to replicate the code he used for his signature, I clearly saw that he altered his signature depending on his mind set. Which, in this point, obviously shows support for Travb's position. If there was any attempt at neutral assertion, it would have been wiser not to select a topic which was one of the flame points for this whole mess between the two editors. This, by no means, neither dismisses his accusations and childish comments towards Mobile 01, concerning her entirely speculated employment at the corporation in question.
Truly, what is at fault here are two editors who approach an article with earnest intentions, and simply failed to find common ground. It turned into an edit war that dissolved into this fracas. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I alter my signature purely for entertaiment value (mostly mine), and sometime will even add a sig opposite of my true feelings - I've used 'Fairness And Accuracy For Randy 'Duke' Cunningham' a few times lately, for instance. Pay no regard to what my sig says, as it might mean what it says, or mean the opposite! - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for levity, but perhaps it was not the best choice of title for this situation! :)
Addressing the deletion log, I'm still confused. I'm not debating if the article existed or not, but Mobile 01's relationship to it. I checked her contributions for any edits to it and found none. Are edits to an article on a contribution list removed when that article is deleted? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are, I'n trying to find out how they can be retrieved though. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. For the most part, I've spent my time on WP quietly working on articles, so there are some technical details I'm still unfamiliar with. However, with all due regard, I'm not sure what the Rubber Dam article indicates other than someone extending their fascination from a topic into a poorly created article. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion afresh

[edit]

I first became aware of this situation when a request for a third opinion was posted on WP:3O (diff) five days ago. Aside from checkuser details above, three aspects are particularly striking. The following three subsections excerpt key Wikipedia guidelines:

Advertising (1)
[edit]

"What about advertisers?"

There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company.

The first and second forms are treated as pure vandalism and the articles are reverted. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely.

The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view or by deleting the article.

Conflict of interest (2)
[edit]

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.

This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.

If you have a conflict of interest, you should:

  1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  2. avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality
  3. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  4. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Definition of disruptive editing (3)
[edit]

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

  • Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Sources: (1) Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertising, (2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, (3) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Contributed by Athænara ✉ 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis added above is intended to help the unrepentant sockpuppeteer understand just one thing: the discussion on this page is not about the character or personality of any individual editor or administrator who opposes certain activities. It is about the mission of the encyclopedia, and the policies and guidelines which preserve and protect that mission. —Æ. ✉ 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No Firestone in Australia?

[edit]

Mobile01 wrote: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand" here

Odd. That's not what Bridgestone AU says:

"Bridgestone Australia Ltd is a leading tyre manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer, with an advanced range of products that leads the field for safety and performance."
"We produce and distribute the Bridgestone, Firestone and Bandag brands, which provide a wide choice of tyre solutions for passenger and light commercial vehicles, and trucks and buses." Bridgestone AU

What's going on? Why the denial of the facts? Curiouser and Curiouser. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going off Mobile 01's statement above, it'd appear she may have been referencing plants, not corporate or retail presence. According to this link from Bridgestone tires are produced in New Zealand for sale in Australia. I haven't been able to find any direct evidence of plants in Australia, yet. Just general corporate descriptive statements which pop up on every bridgestone site without regard to geography. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks for explaining. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon my impatience, but all this amateur-defense-counsel pettifoggery continually leads away from the actual behaviors, actual evidence, actual motivations. The old MMO formula: Means, Motive, Opportunity.
Are you, User: RebelAt, promoting the mission of writing a neutral encyclopedia? Or are you playing trivial social games and taking sides as if these administrative procedures and discussions are merely sport?
While it is argued that one must assume good faith with regard to the defendant's disingenuous attempts to rewrite edit histories and contribs records, and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them, it is also vital to assume the good faith of those who are not deceived by that. — Athænara ✉ 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them," - — Athænara
That right there is one reason, I've been posting. Despite assurance of adopting an attitude that Mobile 01 acted more out of ignorance to Wikipedian policy, you have already decided that Mobile 01 has acted in a malicious and knowingly intentional manner. I, and three other individuals, have recognized that TravB has over reacted in his response to Mobile 01's attempts at discussion. I was personally taken back by his aggressive nature to, in your supportive words, "preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia." Neutrality is great, and it is important, but Wikipedia stands for nothing if people waste more energy on attempting to remove those who they feel are harmful, rather than counsel a mediative solution. That is, rather than attempt to build a case for Mobile 01's removal, which has quite certainly had its ups and downs in terms of success, why has there been no attempt to have an honest discussion and seek a resolution that keeps two active and energetic editors working towards a better product?
I do believe in a better encyclopedia, and I honestly believe that this rampant aggressive behavior does nothing to contribute to it. Thus, influenced by mostly by TravB's actions, I have found myself reluctantly playing a defense under the belief "presumed innocent." A lot of people are always ready to take the most forceful and permanent solutions to end a disagreement. I say shame on them for not offering to seek a less harsh resolution, because this is a wiki, based upon the principle of mutual agreement and mediation. Damn me, then as some juvenile attempting to ruin the encyclopedia under the appearances of sport, fun, and games, but I'd rather collaborate than obliterate on any day of the week. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a new hobby

[edit]

Travb needs to find a new hobby that doesn't include harassing editors he disagrees with phony Sock puppetry cases. This isn't the first time and I hope it is the last. Please close this out and move on. Nothing to see here. --Tbeatty 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tbeatty you have been actively advising USer:Mobile 01 on User:Morton devonshires talk page under a section mocking me: User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Travb_and_his_Pursuit_of_HappYness.
As an admin, instead of telling User:Morton devonshire and User:Mobile 01 that their WP:NPA personal attacks are inappropriate, you are actively helping them.
But when you say "Nothing to see here" and mock me with the title "Travb needs to find a new hobby" despite the overwhelming evidence that something definetly has happened, it deeply troubles me.
I am also troubled that you are not pursuing this sockpuppet case as zealously as you did User:XP. Travb (talk)
I don't recall advising Mobile01 on MD's talk page. I did show her that your attack page was not deleted but I did not comment on it[40]. Nor do I recall ever commenting on user XP. Diff's would be good to help understand where you are coming from. It seems ironic that you felt like an ass for defending him but seem to continue to do so even when you are confusing editors. But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty is an Admin now???!!! Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Travb (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god we got people like Beatty around to defend multinational corporations aginst scurrilous baseless unfounded charges! Maybe he can help on the upcoming Firestone Liberian Child & Slave Labor Controversy article and talk about their dental plan or somethin' ;-) Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I defended a multi-national corporation? Do you guys just make stuff up? --Tbeatty 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty, again, I sugges you delete the personal attack on me, "Travb needs to find a new hobby". If you were not invovled in the User:XP case, my apologies. Several of those editors who you actively work with User:Morton Devonshire were involved with User:XP
My condemnation of User:XP stands, along with my condemnation of all sockpuppets. My stance on sockpuppets is consistent.
"Do you guys just make stuff up?" Please don't link my statments to User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, he often says things which I do not support.
As I have to repeat again and again, their is enough evidence here, which no one has argued, showing that:
User:Mobile 01 has been using a sock puppet account, and
that User:Mobile 01 has refered to herself in the third person while using anon accounts.
Please see Bobble's comments above. Personal attacks on me, which have nothing to do with these facts, are irrelevant and personally offensive.Travb (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets all keep in mind
[edit]
  1. Mobile 01 has been caught in some large factually inaccuracies. #Factual_inconsistencies_of_User:Mobile_01_and_her_intentions_on_wikipedia #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz #Refers to herself in the third person
  2. Mobile 01 has a sock, #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz
  3. Mobile 01 refered to herself in the third person twice. #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz, #Refers to herself in the third person
  4. Bridgestone, Belgium, Ohio, Nashville, has been editing Firestone and Bridgestone.

Travb (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets all keep in mind - Continued
[edit]

Supposed factual Inaccuracies.

  1. First link provided by Travb does not show any innaccuracy. ANd my statement has been explained to Travb on numerours occasions which he fails to include.
  2. Second link merely tries to link an IP address with the first two number sets to another editor. I have already stated that edits with these beginning number sets are probably mine, but have also pointd out that these numnber sets are shared among all users of this ISP. I have tried to point out that user NeilinOZ has not edited in a long time and therefor would not rate as sock puppetry in this case whether that user was or was not me.
  3. I have explained that I deliberatley spoke in the third person so as not to appear as a immitator until such time as I could log in as myself, at which time I corrected the text and signed it properly.
  4. Not sure what Belgium, Nashville and Ohio Bridgestone edits have to do with tihs case, I also notice from user talk:Travb/m that Michelin also edited the Firestone page. It seems to me that many editors have edited this page for a variety of reasons.

As I have stated repeatedly, This whole case is being used to shift the spotlight from the actual issue at hand and that is user Travb and his pushing for inclusion of POV information in the Firestone Article and my push to edit that information to make it NPOV. As for you the reader of this page, I leave it to you to decide. As far as I understand, as the checkuser has been denied and therfor no proof of these allegations will be forthcoming, I am allowed to delete this Sockpuppet case and remove the tag from my userpage after 10 days. Please someone correct me if I am misunderstanding this. Mobile 01Talk 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave this debate

[edit]

It is a bit upsetting when I see this statement included here, where user Travb asks another editor to stay out of this debate because he does not support Travb's position. Travb cites that the user was not invloved in the article before so should not be involved now.

Morton, please see this comment on your archived talk page: [41], asking you to stop your involvment with this case, which you have never been involved with before this checkuser. You have read this message[42].
Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.
Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.
Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.
Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find even more distressing is the lack of a similar request for user Athaenara to do the same. Also not invloved in the article before and yet no request is made to cease involvement as this particular user obviously takes Travb's side. I am not sure it is appropriate to attempt to quash the opinions of those that oppose your point of view and yet to imbellish those that support it especially awarding each other Barnstar awards.

The comments by User Athaenara are also disturbing especially the way in which they try to appear to be neutral in the opening few words. The sentence is a huge contradiction of itself. "We must assume good faith" - but before we do that we must first point out that there was no good faith".

While it is argued that one must assume good faith with regard to the defendant's disingenuous attempts to rewrite edit histories and contribs records, and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them, it is also vital to assume the good faith of those who are not deceived by that. — Athænara ✉ 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would liken this to a prosecutor opening an address to the jury with "We must assume the defendant is innocent in regards to him brutally murdering the victim and then calously robbing that same victim of her personal possesions and setting her body on fire"; I would be calling "OBJECTION"...

The only "Utterly Shameless" thing I see there, is the users own statement, which has been vendictively worded in such a way as to impune me personally and attempt to portray the user Travb as a shining light for wiki policy. Frankly as an obvious supporter and Barnstar giver to user Travb, this editor shows a reluctance to remain neutral in this case.

I think those other editors being criticised by User Athaenara are doing a far better job at remaining neutral and offer constructive advice towards a resolution of this case, rather than User Athaenara's attempts to shift the focus away from Travb and his personal vendetta by a diatribe of words from their pocket thesaurus.

As stated above, the request for checkuser has been denied, the sockpuppet allegations are about edits made long ago by users that have not edited these articles since. This sockpuppet enquiry is finished and unproven and should be closed. Continued debate here is pointless and I would much rather shift the discussion to where it should have been all along and that is on the Discussion page for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article which user Travb refuses to do even after repeated requests from myself and other editors and Admins.
Mobile 01Talk 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..."finished and unproven"? False. Unfinished & largely substantiated? True. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from above..
"But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Why don't we talk about the article over on the article talk page? I'll post some thoughts later tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this debate has come to a conclusion, I would happily offer my abilities for work on the Firestone article. While it is not a topic of much interest to me, I would be more than happy to work towards creating an article that, in hopeful contradiction to Mr. Lincoln's words, might please all of the people all of the time. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Mobile 01Talk[reply]
User:Mobile 01, you have been using socks, User:NeilinOz, which you have refered to in the third person. You have used anon accounts, which in one case you refered to yourself, User:Mobile 01 in the third person. You have denied using anon accounts (203 IP) then when I showed that this 203 IP is you, you only then admit it.
In addition, there are other rules which you have broken repeatedly, which is not relevant to this sockpuppet case. We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused, repeatedly. It is only after the evidence is overwhelming against you, that you now want to comprimise, in what I see as an attempt to avoid the normal punishment given to all of those who user who use sockpuppets. After your weeks of disruption of wikipedia, I think your sudden change of heart comes too little, too late.
None of those who support you (User:Crockspot, User:Morton devonshire, User:Tbeatty who I have actively debated on opposite sides in other debates) have attempted to argue the evidence against you, instead they actively attack with WP:NPA violations those who bring forward this evidence. Travb (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trav, you have yet to PROVE that NeilinOz is a sock of Mobile 01. I haven't argued against your "evidence", because you don't have any. Mobile 01's statement that "even if it was" is a hypothetical, not an admission. And you cannot claim that all edits with the same class B address are all the same person. All you have is some vague circumstantial evidence, and a lot of persistence. Give it up. - Crockspot 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to that, move along Travb you lost your battle, you proved nothing and wasted everyones time once again. Whats that now 2 or 3 unproven sockpuppet cases youve brought now. Still waiting for that apology. If you want to talk about breaking rules, we could discuss your block log. And stop twisting the facts as it doesnt help your case. You pointed out nothing about my IP, I told you that they probably were all me.
You claim I am NeilinOZ who hasnt edited for ages and never did when I did. Dont see how you make a case of sock puppetry when no offence has been commited.
Your attempt to link me to an American editor of LucaZ also proved to have no merit. You introduce assertions that Bridgestone editors are editing articles and try to link that to me, You state some argument a ANON from the other side of the country had with another user on a TV series page and try to link that to me. I am sure you would have me blamed for the war in Iraq if you could only find an IP to match.
And dont use my words as if they were yours. "We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused" are the same words I have been saying to you for weeks. I think everyone who can read has seen my many attempts to get you to discussion and compromise. I have left messages on your talk page which you ignored or deleted. I have tried to discuss on the article but you refuse there too. If there was a normal punishment then I am sure at least one admin would have dealt it by now. Your comments above are your last ditch effort to escape from here without once again looking like an ass. Thats a quote of yours talking about yourself from your last sockpuppet fiasco.
Your checkuser was denied, you have no evidence accept your own assumptions based on the first few numbers in an IP address used by over 100,000 customers. You seem to have this thing about NPA and I have seen you leave this warning on many editors talk pages. I have also seen you do your fair share of personal attacking so I have no sympathy for you on that score. One only has to look up and down this page to see the multitude of NPA against me.
You have been indef blocked, reinstated and then blocked again for uncivility. Sounds like massive NPA probelms to me. Give it up and either get involved with fixing the article or move along to something more productive. I think you have exausted your legal banter and sculduggery supply for now, and certainly exausted the patience of the wiki public. Like another editor said before. Move Along - Nothing to see here. Mobile 01Talk 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Branch Extended

[edit]

The following was left for user Travb on his talk page.

Invitation
[edit]

Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were one of the major editors of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.

Mobile 01Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent quote

[edit]
It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of certain guidelines.
Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think
the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't
be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that.
Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume Good Faith called Assume No Clue, meaning that editors have no clue that they have gone astray of the guidelines until being warned (or demonstrate understanding by using guidelines against their competitors!)

Originally posted by JonHarder on WikiProject Spam talk. — Athænara ✉ 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montparnasse

[edit]
Train wreck at Gare Montparnasse, Paris, France, 1895

Another well-crafted, water-tight case, I see, Mr. Prosecutor. Morton DevonshireYo 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

I'm going to try hard to save myself a tremendous amount of heartache by restricting the scope of this closing to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry charge. This decision should not be read to either endorse or criticise any editor's actions on the Firestone article - that is a whole different kettle of fish, barrel of monkeys, can of worms, and container of other mixed metaphors, that you all can feel free to continue there, hopefully under some other administrator's firm but fair oversight. I'm closing this particular page, to keep the WP:SSP page down to a ... OK, completely unreasonable backlog... and to save my talk page.

Note that this is not a vote, even less so than WP:AFD, WP:RFA, or WP:DRV. So how many people support each side of this conflict is not relevant, only the evidence they present. Even whether or not they are admins is not very relevant, except to the extent that this status allows them to take related admin action. I was tempted to list the people supporting each side here, but let's just leave it that each has multiple dedicated supporters.

I'll group the decision into 4 sections.

  1. NeilinOz1 edited noticeably before Mobile01, on 2 days in two articles, Oct 17 and Oct 21 only, to Smallville (season 6) and Bridgestone only. The contributions NeilinOz1 made to the Bridgestone page were perfectly reasonable, and not contentious. They could have been cited better but that is something hard for new editors. The contributions they made to the Smallville (season 6) page were more contentious, but the conflict was resolved calmly through reasoned discussion on the article talk page - all as it should be. Therefore there is no reason to take any negative action against NeilinOz1 whoever they may be. Though I won't be nominating them for adminship any time soon, they seem to have been a perfectly fine new editor. If they did chose to become a different identity later that would be their undisputed right - they would have nothing bad to hide. Exonerated.
  2. LucaZ edited on Nov 16-18, solely in the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Their edits were more contentious, basically an edit war with Travb. Mobile 01 started editing Nov 19, and though she did not edit FTRC until Dec 6, there were not many intervening edits to that article in that time. Mobile 01 does seem to edit from the same point of view as LucaZ, but that is not conclusive proof. It might seem reasonable to ask for a CheckUser here, but it was denied. LucaZ has not edited since then, so there is clearly no ongoing disruption with a sock puppet. Between insufficient evidence, and blocks being preventative, not punitive, no action will be taken.
  3. The unsigned-in edits are apparently carelessness, rather than malice. Mobile01 admits to most of them, and they did not try to pretend to be someone else. The "referring to self in third person" edit, which could be seen as troubling, was clearly "signed" "Mobile1" at the end, and was quickly acknowledged by a signed-in edit. I understand Charles DeGaulle had the same issue with referring to himself in the third person? I would caution Mobile 01 to be more careful, and to try very hard to sign in while editing related to this contentious issue. It's not that hard, and it's important. If it becomes a repeated issue, it could become an issue for administrative action. User cautioned.
  4. Note again this decision does not address the substance of the edit war, or the content of the Firestone article or whether there should be one or multiple articles, or the behaviour of the parties being civil or not, or otherwise truthful or not. I did not look at that issue, other than to compare edits of various users for the sock puppetry charge. That was more than enough, thanks.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01&oldid=1142528601"