User talk:Mobile 01/Firestone Edit War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Firestone 2 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 3 Solution - Firestone Edit War 4 Firestone 5 Content forking 6 Contentions 7 Firestone 7.1 Stop WP:NPA immediately 8 I removed the personal attacks from your user page 9 Its not Appomattox , yet.

[edit] Firestone

User_talk:Bobblehead/Archive1#Firestone_Edits: Copy of message left for Bobblehead, his reply is below the copy.

Thanks for those fixes, it looks much better the way you formatted it. I keep forgetting that Americans spell Tyre as Tire. I hope the article is more informative now and that all the anti firestone issues are dealt with. I have tried to accomodate all points of view with appropriate links to relevant articles and nuetral POV where appropriate as suggested on the discussion page. Thanks again.

Mobile 01 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome on the cleanup edits. That's why Wikipedia is community supported. Some editors do the heavy lifting and then other editors, like myself, come along and do all the format fixing. :) --Bobblehead 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A message from Travb the user that started this edit war, Thanking me for my edits.

thanks for your work on the firestone page. Travb (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Bobblehead/Archive1#Firestone_Edits: Copy of message left for Bobblehead, his reply is below the copy.

I tried to do something with that Jingle edit, I still dont think it even belongs on the page but another user keeps putting it back. There is coment on it in the discussion page. Hadnt thought about NPOV for this but your wording is as good as any. Personally I would just delete the whole section.

Mobile 01 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having the ad jingle in the article, but then, I wouldn't blink an eye if it disappeared. Heh. How's that for not caring? Not really worth arguing over so if the other user wants to keep it, might as well. Anyways, I called my edit NPOV because of the unsupported claims of "catchy jingle", "establish the Firestone name around the world", and "is still remembered today". Generally need something to support these positive claims.--Bobblehead 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

To be honest with you, the talk page just looks like there's been a break down in relations. At the moment, I'm pretty convinced that re-opening the page would result in more reverting, so I'm not keen to do so. The general accusations - correctly or incorrectly - from both of you about the other breakign policy doesn't fill me with confidence that the reverting which had begun wouldn't continue

So I think this should stay protected for a few more days, please at live the give the discussion page another try! If no developments have occured by, say, Monday then ask for it to be unprotected (though not me as I'm away Sunday-Wednesday). Bear in mind that if you disagree with me, you can make a request at WP:RFP. If any admin reviewing that request wants to unprotect, then that's fine by me. --Robdurbar 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution - Firestone Edit War

The problem is no longer relevant. I have now created a complete backbone to Firestone. A parent Article has been set up called Firestone from this page I have listed all Wiki entries relating to Firestone. Some of these are tyre related, some are people, places and events.

I have created a new article Firestone International which is a copy of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in its best state prior to the edit war. Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA. The article now does what it is meant to do in that it provides information about the company Firestone Internationally. Full company history is provided as well as diversified manufacturing.

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company becomes a redundant orphan now, however as a specific editor wishes to use this article to further their legal and political agenda, they now have free reign to do as they wish. All Wiki entries priviously redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are now redirected to Firestone. From that article readers can follow their own path to whatever information they are looking for. Mobile 01 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now been informed that what I did is called a Content Fork, and has been removed by admin. Mobile 01 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firestone

Hi, I have redirected Firestone International to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is an existing article on the topic, thanks/wangi 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)]

Do not create duplicate articles to push your point of view, Wikipedia must stick to a neutral point of view. Discuss on the articles talk page if you believe the existing article is not neutral. Thanks/wangi 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content forking

Hi, I responded to your question on my talkpage: User talk:Wangi#Firestone. The response the basically the same as my follow admin Woohookitty said.

Please stop recreating the content forks, continuing to do so will lead to you being banned. Discuss the issues you have on the article's talk page and acheive consensus for the changes you believe need to be made. If you cannot reach agreement then there are additional avenues that can be used to get more people involved in the discussion and break a deadlock - let me know if you want to know any more about them. Thanks/wangi 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contentions

Lengthy, contentious, misleading post returned to sender.—Æ. ✉ 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Just for your information, I am not user LucaZ and I dont work by sock puppetry. 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. He continually quotes from the StopFirestone.com web site and included what he calls referenced material albeit referenced from stopfirestone.com. The other two users and I have been trying to bring this article back to NPOV but user Travb refuses to discuss this. On the dicussion page for this article have been many posts about the Liberian Contovesy and it was decided to move it to its own article and have a small section on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page explaining what it was about and then pointing the user to the new article. This whole page had finaly been tidied up by the 3 users with proper criticisms section and properly referenced NPOV links and references. User Tarvb then reverted everything back to his own version and then went back into the page history and brought more stuff back that had already been discussed and removed. Both you and the other two admins are being hoodwinked by user Travb into thinking he is a good editor. You only have to check his previous edits to see he is politically motivated in his editing. So before you accuse me or other editors of being sock puppets, or take sides in an edit war that user TravB has started. Find out the facts. This whole edit war thing is TravB's doing. No one on the article was starting an edit war only TravB. He is the only one who wont discuss his edits, he is the only one who continually reverts other peoples work, he is the only one who is trying to turn the article into an ANTI Firestone article. Mobile 01 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Firestone

Sure I responded. Look here. I am assuming that is you as well since you edited the post that the IP made on my talk page. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article is protected. Editing a page which is a redirect page in such a way as to promote your own version of a protected page pretty much defines a content fork. If we allowed such things, it would make protection completely pointless. And it would probably lead to never ending disputes as people could just continue to create new pages to get around having to discuss things. As I said, this is not difficult. Talk it out. Try to get a compromise with other users. If you feel like other users are not communicating, you can always go through dispute resolution, i.e. a request for comment, mediation, et all. Creating a content fork is not the way to go and you will continue to be reverted. I have no "side" on this issue nor do the other admins taking actions similar to mind. We are here to uphold policy and content forks are definitely not within those policies. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. :( Well. Maybe take a day or two and think about it. Dispute resolution isn't always fun, but it can be rewarding. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I found your response on an IP page. I have copied it across below. Mobile 01 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and working this out with others in this dispute. That page has been protected. It is considered forking to then do what you are trying to do, i.e. create a new page that essentially copies parts of the protected page. You are making a very false assumption. I have no "side" here. I am not one of the "you people" you are referring to. I am trying to uphold policy and that means not allowing content forks, especially from a protected page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop WP:NPA immediately

This is the only warning you will receive. Your continued attacks[1][2][3] after repeated warnings[4][5] will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This recent edit is uncalled for. Travb (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the links you provide above and do not see any personal attacks. I see me explaining my actions to you or other editors and stating my opinions about your edit methods.

Thanks also for deleting your user talk:Travb/m page or having had it deleted by an admin. I am not sure which as there is no edit history any longer. If an admin deleted it then I am grateful to them for seeing what is going on here.

I notice that all your personal attacks on me are slowly being deleted by you from all over wiki where you wrote them. Thanks for that too. Mobile 01^Talk 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed the personal attacks from your user page

I removed your personal attacks directed against TravB from your user page. Please see: user page It's in your best interest not to repost them. Cheers. Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Its not Appomattox , yet.

Mobile 01, hang in there. I believe Travb has really gone too far now. I'm looking into the matter and requesting AnonEMouse to give me her opinion on his most recent behavior. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In some respects, Travb has acted in cooperation with some others I've had trouble with: BenBurch and FAAFA. Travb provided them some extensive coaching on "how to use Wikipolicy like a sword," and the result has been a kudzu-like proliferation of sockpuppet investigations and the like. Dino 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Dean, I have been in trouble enough for supposed WP:NPA violations and I am sure Travb will take offence to your claims he provided training to these other editors. My suggestion to you would be let it go. I'd rather not have the Free Republic issue debated on my talk page. You have won your case and been exonerated just like me. As Morton says below, best let sleeping dogs lie. Mobile 01^Talk 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Presently, I'm trying to get Travb to end this pursuit and collaborate, as per a note I left on his talk page. I brought it to the attention of an Admin, who was involved in closing the sock puppet case, their initial reaction was to let sleeping dogs lie, but I'm still awaiting her response to a reply I left. Anyhoots, its just disappointing that some people lose sight of the real mission of Wikipedia, while I believe earnestly attempting to protect it from perceived threats. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the Admin -- let sleeping dogs lie. The case is closed. If there's an attempt to reopen it, well . . .  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)