Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

User:Mobile 01

Evidence:

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 Tenesee 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]

"I notice in the rules for sock puppets that an account is not considered a sock puppet unless used for illigitamate purposes"
Mobile 01 quotes LucaZ for backing up her version of the edits:
"The reasons for deletion were explained to you by Lucaz"[1]
As per: Wp:sockpuppet#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support: "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."
A third party neutral, who was requested from WP:Third opinion also thought that "may be" LucaZ and Mobile 01 were the same person:
As per: User_talk:Travb#User:Athaenara Wikipedia:Third opinion
LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.
Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.
They may be the same person. [2]
Regarding LucaZ and Mobile 01: My own third opinion is that those two, or that one in (so far) two guises, should be prevented from editing the article and good editors such as yourself [User:Travb] allowed to retrieve the encyclopedic material from the debris. I hope Robdurbar, wangi, perhaps others, continue to assist.[3]


All of the other "misleading" statments above can be addressed somewhere else, if the editors refuse to do a checkuser. So far four independent editors have condemned Mobile 01 actions. Her "dupe" articles have been deleted, and several pages have had to be protected. Again, all this evidence against User:Mobile 01 can be dealt with elsewhere if the editors refuse to do a checkuser. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

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.[4] 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.[5] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[6] 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:

A Little History on Accusations by the Same User

Dear Mobile01, don't get flustered by this user. He's done this sort of thing before, and is rather clumsy and not particularly careful when he brings these sorts of charges. Here's the user making the charge at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Morton_devonshire. Here's the same user falling all over himself and admitting his carelessness at User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_3#Morton_devonshire_is_using_a_sockpuppet. Here's the same user talking about that embarassment at User_talk:Quack_688#Since_I_added_the_2_user_boxes. Keep your chin up Matey! Morton DevonshireYo 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support User talk:Morton_devonshire, I have read those posts and now have a clearer understanding of just how much of a disruptive user User Talk:Travb is. I have also looked through a lot of his edits to other users talk pages and come across a whole lot of complaints of malicious editing and even one where he archived someones talk page. He keeps reverting my own talk page as well even after I cleaned it up as per directions from an Admin. It seems this user has a passion for Conspiracy, Government Control, Corporate Abuse and Coverups which would explain his zeal in promoting his Anti Firestone Propoganda. Thanks once again for your support and I hope all goes well for you too. Mobile 01 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morton forgets to mention the sucessful checkuser right after this. I don't want to drag other users into this debate.
Unlike the previous checkuser, this one is dead on. User:Mobile 01 is in fact from Adelaide, Australia, as she admits in detail on her talk page, created after this checkuser was initated. I am building more evidence of the other two accounts.
Mobile 01, I have warned you repeatedly to stop attacking me. You have ignored these requests, the only option I now have is too involve a third party, yet again.
Mobile 01, you continue to escalate this situation, despite my repeated request for comprimise.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no successful checkuser in your allegations against me. You made an erroneous accusation, and you later admitted your mistake. I don't think you would purposely misstate the facts, so I will have to assume that you are confused and thinking about another editor -- there was NO successful checkuser against me, it never happened. Morton DevonshireYo 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb, now you have made me angry. Your last two edits here are such blatant attempts to make yourself look good. You have warned me to stop attacking you!!!, I am not the one with the vendetta page with opening statements about the reason its there are absolute personal attacks on me. see user talk:travb/m, also I have never made a secret of being from Adelaide Australia.

Repeated requests for compromise?, look around at what your doing right here, you call that compromise!!

I have placed numerous message on your talk page in an attempt to enter into compromising dialog with you. You have immediately archived the message and lied on the edit reason. Your edit comment said "moved to talk" when in fact it was already on the talk page and you actually archived it. You marked your edit as m when it clearly was not a minor change. I replaced my message on your talk page and you deleted it completely this time and wiped your talk page instead putting in two insert page tags. I once again replaced my message to you and you once again wiped your talk page. This doesnt sound like compromise, this sounds like guilt.

I will say once again and in plain english. I am not user LucaZ nor have I ever been user LucaZ. Your comments above about sockpuppet violations is based on your incorrect assumption that I am user LucaZ. So once more I will reiterate, I Am NOT USER LUCAZ. Any cross editing I have done has been accidental and by ANON signin. You have been down this road before with user Morton and were made to appologize for your error. I will expect no less than a full appology on my talk page from you once you have established that I am not user LucaZ.

Now I will ask you once again to stop attacking me on so many fronts and stop escalating this edit war of yours into a major battle ground. I have been very patient with your continued attacks on me and blatant fauls accusations about my being a sockpuppet of LucaZ. If this continues maybe I will have to report you instead. Mobile 01Talk 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An employee of Bridgestone Inc. has been editing the Firestone page

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]
As per: User_talk:Travb#User:Athaenara Wikipedia:Third opinion
LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.
Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.
They may be the same person. [7]
Also:
Regarding LucaZ and Mobile 01: My own third opinion is that those two, or that one in (so far) two guises, should be prevented from editing the article and good editors such as yourself [User:Travb] allowed to retrieve the encyclopedic material from the debris. I hope Robdurbar, wangi, perhaps others, continue to assist.[8]
See: User:Travb/m#Bridgestone_employees_start_deleting_the_page_16_November_2006_to_present
There are two anons that are editing from the Bridgestone office in Ohio in November, 5 minutes after there edits are removed by WP:VP2, User:LucaZ makes the same exact mirror edits. 2 days later, Mobile 01 starts editing this page.
Come to find out those anons are User:Mobile 01, which is only revealed after this checkuser. A quick search on the net allows me to find out that User:Mobile 01 is in the same city as the headquarters of Bridgestone in Adelaide, South Australia.
What is there 100% proof of? That Bridgestone employees in Ohio were deleting material on the Firestone page. Everything else will have to be proven via this checkuser.
Best wishes, Travb (talk) 14:35, 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 page. I will continue to compile evidence.
You have been incredibly disruptive on wikipedia, just ask the four other independent editors. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01&oldid=101377302

Leave a Reply