User talk:RebelAt/Archive II

Jan 22, 2007 to Feb 4, 2007.

And The Band Played On
User_talk:AnonEMouse

I Surrender. Mobile 01 Talk  14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comments on mouse page

 * User_talk:AnonEMouse

I don't understand why you are defending someone like Mobile 01 who has broken so many wikirules. User:Travb She has averted a page protection, numerous WP:NPA violations, deletion of well documented information, refering to herself twice in the third person, and "inconclusive" sock puppetry. Is it my caustic attack style? Is that the reason why you are coming to the defense of Mobile 01?

You speak about me escalating the situation, but please stand back, what brought us to this point? User:Travb It was Mobile 01's deletion of well referenced material, followed by an absolute refusal to follow the rules, in which she was chastized by several editors and admins, that forced me to counter her tactics.

RE: Mobile 01, it is really hard to work with someone who so casually abuses wikirules, and who asks for comprimise on my talk page, yet calls me nasty names and makes fun of me somewhere else.

The problem with your case against myself, is that I have not broken any wikirules in this case, so you are stuck with complaints to admins, hoping to find a sympathetic ear.

I ask you User:RebelAt : What wikirules have I broken? I have listed Mobile 01's clearly, and yet all you can say in response is vague accusations of "stalking" and "harrassment". Everything that I listed on these three sections is factually correct:


 * User:Travb
 * User:Travb
 * Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

I challenge yourself or anyone else to point out any factual errors, which I will quickly correct.

My one big mistake, which I admit readily, is I cannot prove that Mobile 01 works for Firestone, only that her edits are the same as Firestone employees, and that Firestone employees have been actively editing the Bridgestone and the Firestone page.

When I realized that I could not link her 100% to this Firestone, I withdrew this argument.

Block history

One last point: My block history, is well history. I brought up the Arbcom ruling of User:Zer0faults several times in debates with him, and I was told to stop immediatly by admin User:Thatcher131. I kindly ask the same courtesy from yourself.

If you notice my block history, and my older edits, my editing style has adapted and grown immensly. I am very careful not to have WP:NPA violations like User:Morton devonshire and User:Mobile 01 are still prone to do.

I am careful not to violate the pleathora of wikirules, because I am very vocal in my opinion, and I have made a lot of unpopular decisions which have made me few friends here on wikipedia. I have made a lot of mistakes, and paid dearly for those mistakes.

The biggest mistake I ever made was sticking up for User:Cplot and User:Rootology. So I understand a little why you stick up for editors who clearly break wikipedia rules, I was there once too.

In fact, I suspect that User:Morton devonshire joined this argument because of my mea culpa and strong apology on USer:MONGOs page. An apology for sticking up for disruptive editors such as User:Cplot and User:Rootology who refuse to follow wikipedia rules. I vowed to think twice before doing this again.

Unlike small groups of like minded editors (three groups come to mind), who ignore their own groups wikipedia violations and only attack others, I actively condemn friends and foe alike when they break wikirules. For a vivid example of this, look at my harsh comments to Fair, which are harsher than anything I have ever said to User:Morton devonshire (I have many examples of this if you are interested). My candid opinion makes me few friends here, but at least I don't feel like a hypocrite in condemning one wikipedian who I disagree with, and giving a free pass to someone who shares my own POV.

I still don't understand why you have come to the "rescue" of User:Mobile 01, unlike User:Morton devonshire or User:Tbeatty I have never been in a debate on a page with opposite sides with you. Your first edit on this case is here.

You explained how you became involved here: "I stumbled across this whole incident purely by chance following a sock puppet case that involved Virginia."[]

Maybe I should have spent more time talking to you on your talk page, maybe I should have given you a barnstar too. In my opinion notice that User:Mobile 01 passes out Barnstars a lot, I am a little more selective about who I give barnstars too. I made a lot of mistakes in presenting this case. I bit even those people who protected some of the pages when User:Mobile 01 attempted to orphan the page. This made enemies when I could have made allies. Although I followed all of the wikipedia rules (too my knowledge) I was caustic with everyone, that was a mistake.

Unlike the two other editors who stuck up for User:Mobile 01, I have never bit you have I? I will have to check my edit history. I don't think I have.

I was pretty frustrated at the beginning of this whole ordeal, because no one seemed to be doing anything other than repairing the damage that Mobile 01 created, with no negative repecusions.

This is not the first time that someone got a free pass whereas I have consistently get the harshest punishment (as you notice I was banned indefinetly once for having the adacity to argue fair use with User:Kelly Martin and her group).

My biggest mistake has been to speak my mind, and not kiss up to powerful admins, as other wikiusers do. If I started saying the WP:NPA violations that User:Morton devonshire and User:Mobile 01 say repeatedly, do you think with my edit history, that I would last long on wikipedia?

Anyway, I have wasted enough of your time talking to myself. You wanted a dialogue, so here it is. Sorry it is so long.

I am most interested why you continue to stick up for User:Mobile 01. Travb (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. To answer your last question, from my perspective, the errors that Mobile 01 made were done less in ill intention, and more out of naivety.  In your post here, you made a point of saying that your past was your past, and you want to be judged on your actions now.  Yet, this is one thing you're denying Mobile 01.  She's trying to do right, and trying to do exactly what a contributor is supposed to do, yet you continue to hound her (the posts on the talk pages, were really unnecessary, since, as you said, people can always look at the history of edits).  So what I'm saying, take into consideration your past experiences, how you don't want your past to color your present and decide if you want to apply that to other people than yourself.  ~ (The Rebel At) ~  14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I see your point. :)
 * The difference is that my past edit history has nothing to do with Firestone, whereas Mobile 01, which is almost entirely devoted to Firestone does. Of course Mobile 01's edit history on Firestone/Bridgestone is applicable to Firestone/Bridgestone.
 * When I started to branch out about Zer0faults edit history onto other pages, he went crazy. But sticking to the page history at hand seemed to be permitted.
 * I personally have not used anons to edit the same pages.
 * I agree all of the 211 anon edits maybe a mistake on Mobile 01's part, I have to believe this under WP:AGF. But User:Mobile 01 still denies editing under the in some places, but takes credit for  edits in other places. Mobile 01: "The 100 years timeline was only recently added by me and I had started to edit it." (this timeline was created by the  )
 * As per Wp:sockpuppet "Policies apply per person, not per account."  If Mobile 01 is in fact, then the block history should apply to her, as my block history and your block history is clearly evident to all.
 * Notice how I no longer mention the 211 anon accounts? Mobile 01 has acknowledged she is in fact these 211 anons. We can now all move on.
 * I also have let the numerous WP:NPA violations go. I realize new editors, used to blogs and chat boards with no rules, say things freely on wikipedia (I know I did as a new editor).  I have warned User:Mobile 01 repeatedly about this, and her WP:NPA attacks have dropped.  So as long as she refrains from calling me names, the past is in the past as far as I am concerned.
 * Apology
 * As I mentioned on the Firestone page, I apologize publically for accusing Mobile 01 of being an employee of Firestone.  There is simply not enough evidence to prove this. I was wrong. Under WP:AGF I must assume that she is not an employee of Firestone at all. Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.
 * Thank you
 * As I also mentioned on the Firestone page, I am glad that Mobile 01 was so tenacious, because now we all know that several Bridgestone offices around the world have edited both the Firestone and Bridgestone page.
 * It is troubling to me that Firestone employees and Mobile 01 seem to work in concert, as it has been troubling to at least two other editors, but there is no proof that Mobile 01 in this case has done anything wrong.
 * Please advise
 * Please advise Mobile 01 in the future to not replace the Firestone article with her Firestone draft citing "community conensus" if she discourages other editors to work on this draft.
 * I appreciate your work and your comments, and I am glad we are talking. Travb (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Response about the draft article
Here is my response: Talk:Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Thank you for your work on trying to mediate this article. I am still not sure why you got involved, which makes a little bit nervous, but I appreciate your help. Travb (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look at it asap. As for participation, I just wanted to see folks work together on something they both obviously had an interest in.  ~ (The Rebel At) ~  16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)