Talk:Firestone Liberian controvesy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Page being moved

This page was originally moved by a probable Bridgestone employee, User:LucaZ. User:Mobile 01, who is now the biggest supporter of this move, agrees that User:LucaZ is probably a Bridgestone employee.

I think this article, along with the Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy should not be split up. There was never a consenus in this move, except between User:Mobile 01 and the probably Bridgestone employee, User:LucaZ.

Look at the history of Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy is a mess. It was created by a wikiuser and since then any link to it has been removed on the Ford page.

Other examples of bad splits abound:

Wal-Mart is probably the worst example. From what I gather, two groups argued for months about creating a Wal-Mart controvery page. It was created Criticism_of_Wal-Mart, and now there are two competing articles: one within the Wal-Mart article, Wal-mart#Criticism and one with Criticism of Wal-Mart. These articles copy each other in content.

In the 14 months on wikipedia, I don't personally know of any good article splits. I am sure there are some out there, but I haven't found any.Travb (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• This page was originally created by Me(Mobile 01).
• The above comment by user Travb that it was moved by a probably Bridgestone Employee User:LucaZ is a false one, and is possibly placed here in order to mislead future editors of this article.

• There was no consensus between LucaZ and myself another falsehood.
• User LucaZ has left Wikipedia and I personally have never interacted with that user.
• This page was created out of a sub section on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and has been enlarged apon.
• The Firestone article is currently undergoing a major revision and while that is underway, this article needs to be preserved.
• Discussion on the Firestone page has begun, and an impartial editor User:Fairness And Accuracy For All has suggested that this article should remain and be expanded to properly cover this topic.

More thoughts: I think that the Firestone 500 fiasco, and the Liberian labor practices controversy should both be covered in detail - but in separate 'spinout' articles, like the Explorer Rollover issue is - with about the same amount of text in the main Firestone article. Thoughts? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[1]

• This topic is too important to be left as a subsection of the Firestone Article.

Please address your comments about this article on this discussion page.

Mobile 01^Talk 08:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mobile 01, welcome back, I guess your pronouncement that you were leaving was premature.

The Firestone page is smaller than 32 kb long, there is no warning on the page that it is too big. Click the view source button on the Firestone page.

For example, on the Ford page:

This page is 70 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

As per: Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page#Size the Firestone article size is just fine.

Please WP:AGF and don't state the reason I do what I do, because you are often wrong.

My mistake, you created the article, not User:LucaZ.

LucaZ and the bridgestone employees often have the exact same edits, so sometimes it is hard to keep you all apart, my aplogies.

LucaZ (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and the Bridgestone employee 199.48.24.11 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) deleted the Liberian section,[2][3] and then later you (User:Mobile 01) created this article split, after attempting on December 5th, and failing to delete this section.[4]

I take issue with your claim that you have never deleted anything from the Firestone article. If you would like, I can write up a long list of deletions of well-referenced sections. Travb (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I was limiting my time on here not leaving. Mobile 01^Talk

Size is not the issue, the issue is the information which is important in it's own right. What is also important is that this information does not get lost by placing it on a page that is going to be replaced. Mobile 01^Talk

That should read "Had the same edits", and it's not hard to keep them apart as they have not edited this article in months. Mobile 01^Talk

It was created by me as a spinoff article that deserves to be a new article.

Well I take issue with your continued attempts to prevent changes and improvements to wikipedia, especially when the changes I am trying to put in place are a direct result of another editors suggestion on the Firestone Talk page. An editor I might add that you brought into this dispute in the first place.

If you revert this page again I will report it to Admin, cite you for disruption and have page protection put in place. I have asked you now repeatedly to discuss and not revert. You continue to ignore efforts to discuss matters and to push your own POV and ideas with no compromise. Talk, Discuss, Listen, Agree. Simple rules to edit by. Mobile 01^Talk 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, welcome back regardless :)

First of all: I did not bring Fair into the argument.

Second of all, there is no consensus on your move, despite your continued insistence that their is. If I recall, you made it sound like User:Bobblehead supported all of your changes, when in reality, he did not, the only people who mirrored your changes were the bridgestone employees, and the bridgestone sock, LucaZ.

We have repeatedly discussed this "content or POV fork". I have repeatedly said that splitting the article is unwarranted under Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page#Size. Your reponse has been to cite consensus which does not exist (for the second time), and cite no policy of your own. The first attempt to delete this section did not work, by yourself, the bridgestone employees, and bridgestone sock [5]. Now you have decided to split the article. Travb (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly let me say that I understand that you have literacy problems and perhaps English is not your first language, however as I very clearly state up above "There was NO consensus between user LucaZ and myself" is seems strange that your second point implies I am saying the opposite. What I am saying is that a suggestion by FAAFA on the firestone article discussion page is my reason for once again trying to resurrect this article that you seem intent on keeping hidden from wiki users. I have copied his suggestion for you once again in case you have missed the two other attempts to show it to you.

  More thoughts: I think that the Firestone 500 fiasco, and the Liberian labor practices controversy should both be covered in detail - but in separate 'spinout' articles, like the Explorer Rollover issue is - with about the same amount of text in the main Firestone article. Thoughts? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

• Secondly, no one mirrored my changes as my changes actually came last. By the time I started to edit this article, both the ANONS and LucaZ had already stopped.
• Thirdly, we have not discussed this article. You have DICTATED YOUR VIEW of how YOU! want things to appear on Wikipedia.
• Fourthly, I never had any dealings with FAAFA until this issue, you on the other hand have a considerable history with him/her. As they most certainly did not troll into this case on my account, I would say that pretty much means you brought them in.
• Fifthly, this article is not a "Content Fork" or "POV" piece. While my changes to Firestone may have been considered by some to be a content fork, that is certainly not the case here. No one has objected to this split/move except you, the fact that other editors have begun to edit it would indicate the implied consensus.
  • It is your own accusations of my motives which contradict your argument. By your own assertions, I would be the last person to want this article to exist.
  • The topic of this article is quite relevant to the demise of Firestone as one of the Top American companies and it shows yet another major blunder by this corporation which ultimately led to their take over by the Bridgestone Corporation.
  • This is a very important issue which deserves a much greater presence on Wikipedia than a subsection on a corporate article. The firestone page will most definately have information about this topic and will link out to this article just as it used to before you changed it.
  • Being an ongoing case with major ramifications for both the Firestone Group and the people of Liberia, this article must remain in place and be allowed to expand as new information becomes available.
  • As trials begin and evidence is presented to the American courts, it is imperative that the full story is recorded and fully explored.
  • It would be impossible to include all relevant information on the Firestone page without turning that page into this page. By reducing this article to sub section status, it actually creates the illusion of POV editing.
  • I would have thought that you of all people would be glad to have an article devoted soley to this topic where wiki users can read the full events of this case with both sides equally represented. As it stands at the moment it is still very POV in favour of the Liberian side and needs balance. There are plenty of sources available to find this balance and I would call upon you to edit this article and show the complete picture rather than trying to bury it on the Firestone Article.

Mobile 01^Talk 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

NPA violations

RE: "Firstly let me say that I understand that you have literacy problems and perhaps English is not your first language"

Mobile 01 How many times do I need to remind you that WP:NPA violations such as this are against wikipolicy? Mobile 01, you continue to talk about building consensus and yet you continue to attack me with blatant WP:NPA violations and continue to break wikipolicy. For 22 days now I have had to tolerate this behavior.

consensus between user LucaZ and Mobile 01 '

RE: There was NO consensus between user LucaZ and myself

Lets quote some of your "community support" comments of the past, many which on minor further investigation have been shown to be completly erroneous:

The liberian section has been deleted by many editors as is shown above, where you asked editors to stop deleting it. The reasons for deletion were explained to you by Lucaz.[6] This is not the case. there are only 3 people currently editing this page. Agreement has been reached via the discussion page on sections being removed as irrelevent.[7] The other users and I have been trying to keep tihs article about Firestone and removing tihs other rubbish to where it belongs. [8] If you check the discussion page you will see that this user has been told repeatedly by many others why this information should not be included. We have a large discussion page where all TravB edit have been discussed.[9] As you probably noticed from the discussion page, the user TravB has made many entries about his edits. All of these have been answered and agreed on that they should not exist in this article. Not just by me but by other Wiki Editors too. Several editors have reverted his edits and he has been asked repeatedly on the discussion page to stop including this information on this article.[10] I live in Australia and have no idea where LucaZ lives. TravB has singled the two of us out and also another user Bobblehead because we are the only 3 who are trying to stop him from completely hijacking the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and turning it into his own political agenda of anti firestone...The other two users and I have been trying to bring this article back to NPOV but user Travb refuses to discuss this...This whole page had finaly been tidied up by the 3 users with proper criticisms section and properly referenced NPOV links and references. [11] Unfortunately no one can discuss anything on the articles discussion page since you flooded it with all your information on the reverts you did. It is no longer possible to follow any of the discussion threads.[12] He has placed so much information on the discussion page that it is no longer of use to anyone in trying to follow a discussion.[13] He is the only one who wont discuss his edits...[14] User Travb has enlisted a couple of admins and a few other of his cronies to try and balance his side of the argument and now has attacked my talk page and is reverting everything I do on wikipedia. [15] On the discussion page he has been repeatedly told about not putting POV content on the page and several users including myself, LucaZ and Bobblehead have tried to explain to him about the NPOV policy of wiki articles. User Travb reverted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company back to his POV version and replaced much ancient content already discussed by other editors...Editors compromised as best as they could with Travb by allowing him to create a criticisms section on the article, we even went so far as to create new articles about the topics he raised and provided a small section on each issue in the criticisms section with links out to the main wiki articles. This still was not good enough for Travb and he once again reverted everyones edits and then filled the article with Anti Firestone Propoganda citing it as referenced material. These references come from anti firestone activity groups and are biased twisted versions of factual events. Searching the web provideds adequate information to dispute or at least counter balance those allegations against firestone USA...Finally, this all seems like a bit of a witch hunt of me and fellow editors who do not agree with travb turning the Firestone Page into a propoganda article in aid of Stopfirestone.com. [16] Remember that it is you that started an edit war where there was none, and it was you that refused to accept the article as agreed on the discussion page by many users[17] Bobblehead is a sock? You also try to imply that Bobblehead is also a sock of mine because he made comment about the americans spelling Tyre as Tire.[18]

So which is it Mobile 01? Which statments are you going to stick by?

The comments above, where you state that consensus has been reached by LucaZ among other editors?

Or todays comments?:

There was NO consensus between user LucaZ and myself

Again Mobile 01, you can't have it both ways. Which one is it going to be? Attacking me with WP:NPA violations when I simply rely on your earlier statments, doesn't make your inconsistent statments any more or less inconsistent.

Hiding the article and Mobile 01's intention in creating this content fork

RE: What I am saying is that a suggestion by FAAFA on the firestone article discussion page is my reason for once again trying to resurrect this article that you seem intent on keeping hidden from wiki users.

An article split/content fork moves large amounts of information to a new article, meaning that information is not readily available for people to see, without clicking a link. So of the two options:

1. keeping the article entact, or
2. creating a content fork,

I believe keeping the article entact and in one place would be more open and less hidden, not greater.

Lets recall your comments on Bridgestone:

== Largest tire recall in history? Ford fiasco? == I don't see this big news story of a few years ago mentioned in the article. Shouldn't there be some reporting and analysis of the tire failures, the fingerpointing, and the cost to both companies? --CliffC 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) This topic is well covered in its own article as well as in the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.235.50 (talk • contribs).

"tire failures" of the Bridgestone should be kept out of the Bridgestone article, and moved to Firestone. There also was a concerted effort with Firestone employees to remove any reference to Bridgestone in the Firestone article. I can investigate this more in the edit history, if needed.

And here you support the split of even more of the controveries sections:

I think that the Firestone 500 fiasco, and the Liberian labor practices controversy should both be covered in detail - but in separate 'spinout' articles

So please don't accuse me of "hiding" anything.

Also, despite your repeated denials of being —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.235.50 (talk • contribs)., a user with a boot history, the edit history says otherwise.

RE: Secondly, no one mirrored my changes as my changes actually came last. By the time I started to edit this article, both the ANONS and LucaZ had already stopped.

First of all, to mirror a persons edits it does not matter who comes first, second, third, or fortieth.

Looks like I am going to have to write up a detailed deletion history to settle this debate, as I have already wrote up yesterday a detailed deletion/archive history to finally settle the debate on who was responsbile for deleting everyones comments (Mobile 01 and Morton) on the Firestone page.

One example of many, was that the Bridgestone anons and the Bridgestone sock (LucaZ) deleted the Liberian section. One of your first edits as an anon, was to also to delete the Liberian section. This is the same edit, a mirror of LucaZ and the Bridgestone anons. When this deletion of well referenced material was restored again, as it had been numerous times, you then "spinned out" the article into this article.

So the intentions of the Bridgestone anons, the Bridgestone sock, and yourself (Mobile 01) were clear from the edit history:

• Your first intention was to delete this section. along with the Bridgestone anons, the Bridgestone sock

This deletion was unsuccessful. So after several months of the Bridgestone anons, the Bridgestone sock, and yourself (Mobile 01) attempting to delete this section:

• Your secondary intention was to split this section

In otherwords, your first intention was to delete the section, that failed, so then you spinned out this article in a content fork.

When you admitted that you were attempting to "orphan" the protected Firestone page, you said:

"Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA."[19]

Your words, not mine. I find it hilarious that later you stated that these comments were taken out of context. Anyone, even the casual reader, can easily click the edit history, were you said this. Your intentions were pretty clear.

RE: It is your own accusations of my motives which contradict your argument. By your own assertions, I would be the last person to want this article to exist.

That is why, as an anon, you originally deleted the article.

Re: This is a very important issue which deserves a much greater presence on Wikipedia than a subsection on a corporate article.

So important, that as an anon, you originally deleted the article.

Re: As it stands at the moment it is still very POV in favour of the Liberian side and needs balance. There are plenty of sources available to find this balance and I would call upon you to edit this article and show the complete picture rather than trying to bury it on the Firestone Article.

I discussed who is truly attempting to "hide" or "bury" the article.

If you are so concerned about balance, and so concerned about this topic, why not, instead of deleting this article originally, you added references which balanced the article?

Bringing in Fair

RE: Fourthly, I never had any dealings with FAAFA until this issue, you on the other hand have a considerable history with him/her. As they most certainly did not troll into this case on my account, I would say that pretty much means you brought them in.

Mobile 01's statment here:

especially when the changes I am trying to put in place are a direct result of another editors suggestion on the Firestone Talk page. An editor I might add that you brought into this dispute in the first place.

Mobile 01's statment at the Benburch RfC (later deleted by an admin)[20]:

...nor have I been able to find any evidence that User:Travb has been involved with BenBurch. While there is some history between Travb and Fairness, this does not seem to be always friendly or with unilateral view points. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

So once again Mobile 01, we have at the worst contradictory statments, and the best we have misleading statments. Either Fair is my ally, or he is not. With your logic, you could also say this:

Fourthly, I never had any dealings with Morton devonshire until this issue, you on the other hand have a considerable history with him/her. As they most certainly did not troll into this case on my account, I would say that pretty much means you brought them in.

Morton devonshire and I have also had a considerable history, does that mean I brought in Morton too? Morton and I have been in several bitter edit wars in the past few months. I asked Morton not to get involved in this debate, but he has obviously refused.

By this logic, are you saying that Morton "trolled" into this case on my account?

Your statments here seem to indicate that Fair and I are allies, when we most definetly are not. Just as Morton and I are most definetly not allies.

This maybe was not your meaning, but I think a causual observer would be mistaken into thinking this. DeanHinnen seemed to think Fair and I were allies, based on the comments on your talk page.[21]

A cursory look at Fair and my edit history shows that, in your own words: "[Fair and I] does not seem to be always friendly or with unilateral view points"

I personally wish both Fair and Morton would leave this page.

Travb (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The word is spelled 'definitely'.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protected from vandalism

This page was protected because it was constantly being deleted and redirected to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. It has been several days since this was done and as yet no one has attempted to discuss this issue. I am assuming from the silence that everyone agrees that the page should remain as it's own article rather than being hidden away on a corporate article. Mobile 01^Talk 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the article should remain in the new Bridgestone merged article. The reasons are listed above. Particularly the policy on why split articles are created, and the policy on content forks. Please don't equate debate silence to community support. Thanks. Travb (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is no "new Bridgestone merged article".

The rest of this message and talk page discussion are non relevant twists and attempts at misdirection and as such are ignored. I no longer recognize Travb, he does not exist in my world and as such I shall no longer respond to his prolonged attempts to push unrelated events into his own coherent version of how things happen. I think the average editor can also follow Travb edits, links and references and quite plainly see how they distort and misdirect the true facts of this issue.

One only need look at how he has already tried to twist my words against me up above. Firstly he accuses user LucaZ of creating this page - Incorrect. Secondly he says there was no consensus for this split except by LucaZ and Mobile 01 - another innacuracy, when I point out the falseness of his statement by telling him that there was never a consensus on moving the page between LucaZ and Myself, he then twists my words and tries to apply my statement to a different part of the debate.

Then he implies I am a liar and has the nerve to accuse me of NPA violations.

This quote taken from one of his many user pages User:Travb/c where he brags about how he creates and wins edit wars, "Months before you came to wikipedia, I have consistently prevailed in edit wars... " provides a good indication of why this user began this edit war, Personally I think he enjoys the controversy he creates and the attention he gets. Is it normal for any single editor to get into so many edit wars on so many different topics. One would have to assume that the edit war is Travb's preferred first line of attack.

Yet another example of how he twists another editors words can be seen in his comments about FAAFA. He tries to imply my statements are contradictory by twisting my words and adding a few of his own. No where did I ever say that he and FAAFA were allies, I simply said that it was Travb that brought him here either directly or indirectly. But his own text clearly shows how he tries to manipulate the facts to fit his arguments. This I believe is what they teach you at Lawyer school.

I have read many of Travb messages and edits on Wiki, where he specifically claims that he lived in another country before moving to the USA and is in a hurry to leave and go back again. Given his inability to comprehend the multitude of explanations left for him by myself and many other editors, it is not unreasonable to assume that his inability to understand what is said to him, must relate to his concept of the English language. My comment about English not being his primary language were not NPA violations but a statement based on my observations and Travb's own message history.

This article should remain in it's own right and should be expanded on as the case unfolds, while there is a connection to Firestone, this article is not about Firestone but about a court case. Mention it on the firestone page by all means, but leave the bulk of the information here.

I have nothing further to add to this debate or any other debate involving Travb. I shall no longer respond not communicate with this disruptive repeat offender who constantly applies his lawyering skills to make cases where none exist. Travb is still performing his closing argument but the jury has already gone home.

Mobile 01^Talk 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)