Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Firestone 2

message: The first Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company failed because of User:Cls14 comments: 
*"Agree, although unsure about the process (have read help page but not sure what happens from here!)" 
Here is the explanation, by Admin User:Shyam Bihari, who closed the original case: 
User:Shyam Bihari,  stated that: 
:If all the involved parties are interested and ready to assume good faith then you may consider making a fresh request again. 
I went ahead and created this new request, as all parties are interested and ready to assume good faith. Travb (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

message: Ive agreed to take on mediation. Id like a brief summary of each of your views on these issues only (for the moment): "Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone?" (merge?) (merge history?) "Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split?" "What is a NPOV source?" Please be as brief as possible. Concise language demonstates 1. your understanding that I dont have all the time in the world 2. your powers of language, hence I can more easily understand you and give greater weight to your argument. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation start 

message: User Talk:Mobile 01
*Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone
:Firestone was an American company that was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988. Wikipedia currently has an article Bridgestone which is about the parent company. This article has sections about the major subsidiaries. Wikipedia also has an article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the American Firestone company and it's history. It has been suggested that the two articles be merged now that Firestone is owned by Bridgestone. I do not agree with this merge. There is already a section in the Bridgestone article about the subsidiary Firestone as well as links to the wiki article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for further reading. I feel that should these articles be merged, then either a lot of the Firestone History will be lost or the Bridgestone article will become too huge. 
*Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split
:There is a section on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company relating to this issue and a separate article on the issue itself. I feel this issue warrants more than just a section in the firestone article and should have it's own article as do the other issues mentioned on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page such as the Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy. This link shows how these topic were being covered prior to the edit war. Original Version
*What is a NPOV source
:Is a source such as WWW.STOPFIRESTONE.COM a biased and obviously anti Firestone web site, a suitable source for citation for this article. Likewise, are Bridgestone and Firestone web sites suitable sources for citation. I would suggest that the StopFirestone web site is not suitable whereas the Bridgestone and Firestone web sites are. While this may seem like a double standard, I believe that the corporate sites are valid sources of information but that a web site aimed solely at promoting Anti Firestone Propaganda is not.
: Mobile 01Talk 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile 01 

message: User Talk:Bobblehead
*Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone
:At this point in time Firestone is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgestone, so it's hard to argue that they are different companies.  However, having said that, prior to 1988 they were two different companies and the purchase of Firestone by Bridgestone did not make Firestone's history Bridgestone's.  As long as the Firestone article sticks to the pre-1988 history I see no reason why it can not remain as its own article.  An example of this would be McDonnell Douglas which merged with Boeing in 1998. McDonnell Douglas had a full history prior to its merger and as such it is worthy of its own pre-merger article.  The Liberian controversy is a tricky wicket and I'll try to cover in the next section.--Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberian controversy began prior to the 1988 purchase by Bridgestone and continued after the purchase.  In order to give the topic justice, it seems that having the full Liberian controversy in its own article is most appropriate. However, having said that, completely removing the topic from both the Firestone and the Bridgestone articles doesn't seem appropriate to me.  I would prefer that each article contain a summary of the part of the controversy that the company was responsible for.  The Firestone article would contain a summary of the pre-1988 issues, while the Bridgestone article would contain a summary of the post-1988 issues and both articles would contain links to the full article.--Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure of the purpose of this question?  Whether or not a source is POV or not isn't a reason to include it or not include it in an article. The only thing that matters is whether or not the source is reliable or not. If POV were a valid reason for not include a source, the New York Times could not be included as a source in articles because it is viewed as having a Liberal bias and the Washington Times could not be included as a source in articles because it is viewed as having a Conservative bias. Or, if you want a more related example, if POV is a valid reason for not including a source, then the Bridgestone/Firestone corporate website can not be included as a source on the article because it is obviously biased in a pro-Firestone direction and stopfirestone can not be used because it is anti-Firestone.  You can't draw a line saying only anti-Firestone sites can't be included, the line would have to be drawn on both sides of Neutral.  But like I said, POV is not a reason to not include a site as a source. Discussion of the validity of StopFirestone would be better placed on whether or not it's reliable or not. To which I say, unless there is some evidence provided to the contrary, it is reliable.  The site is supported by a number of reliable agencies that would be discredited if StopFirestone were not a reliable source of information related to the lawsuit.  --Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobblehead 

message: User Talk:Morton_devonshire
*Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone
**Reply.  For our purposes here, it doesn't matter whether a company has been acquired by another.  So long as they have a significant notable history as separate companies, we should describe each company separately, as the reader would expect to find an article about each subject.  Of course, each article should mention that a merger has occurred, but that shouldn't prohibit two articles, particularly for U.S. readers, where Bridgestone and Firestone were separate brands for a significant period of their time as consumer products.  A similar example would be Time Warner and AOL -- although they have common ownership today, on Wikipedia we have two articles, as each brand has significant notable history as a separate brand in the United States.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morton_devonshire 

message: User Talk:Cls14
*Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone
From a European perspective it certainly is. The company is known here as Bridgestone-Firestone as Bridgestone bought Firestone. However the two WERE seperate companies and so Firestone should have it's own article with Firestone history up until it was taken over. 
*Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split
Depends on how much information we can get about it. There should not be a large amount about it on the Bridgestone/Firestone article as it is not a major part of the companies history, neither is it all that well known about (in the UK anyway). However I have no problem in there being a lengthy article elsewhere if there is information available.
*What is a NPOV source
If you are talking about the Liberian controversy then a national news broadcaster such as the BBC or CNN would be good. However I don't think the BBC have ran a story on it (can be checked if necessary). As for other sources I imagine they will be biased one way or the other.
Cls14 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cls14 

message: I have kind of lost interest in this article.  I will offer a comprimise for Mobile 01 (her and I are the central figures in this debate). Then we maybe can close this RfM today.
:#the POV Stopfirestone.org is actively policed by me, I make sure the link never goes on the firestone/bridgestone page.  
:#Firestone Liberian controversy remains split
:#I actively police that the Firestone rollover controversy remains a split article.
:#Firestone is merged into Bridgestone
:#The Firestone table which another user removed, goes back on the page, in the modified version we discussed.  I will actively fight for it to remain on the page.  If it is removed for longer than a week, despite my best efforts, then the Firestone and Bridgestone page is split again, no complaints. (Caveat: the table maybe radically changed, but it will remain on the page, I will do all the research if necessary to avoid the copyvio deletions)  
:# After this, if you wish mobile01 (if you don't want me "policing" the page), I will unwatch the page, but check back every week and later, in time, every month. You can alert me anytime if anyone is trying to add back stopfirestone.org or delete the table you created, I will help you.  But this comes with a caveat, if large sections which I helped write are again removed, especially referenced material, I put it back on my watchlist until the issue is resolved.  I have unwatched several articles many times before, with many articles. 
Please respond on my talk page, or if the rules allow, here. 
What do you think Mobile01?  If you agree then we can put it forward to everyone else. This RfM can be closed tonight.  I hate haggling, so this is a pretty firm offer, I am laying all the chips on the table.
Travb (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travb

message: I agree with the majority of what Travb proposes. I do have some objections though. 
:The Bridgestone and Firestone article should remain separate. I have seen nothing convincing me that wikipedia will be best served by the proposed merge. The two articles are quite distinct and while they share the same parent company that is not reason enough to merge them. Kentucky Fried Chicken(KFC), Pizza Hut, Taco Bell etc etc are all owned by the same parent company and yet maintain their own articles.
:The 100 year history table was started by another user but was done badly, I edited that table the same day it was placed on the article and made it better looking. I am currently working on an update for this table in my wikispace, which I will insert later.
:The Liberian article should be improved as new information becomes avalable on the current case. The section in the Firestone article should be returned to how it was before the edit war. The Alien Tort claim section should be removed from the firestone article as it has no relevence to firestone. It is a sub related issue of the Liberian article and should be covered there.
Basically I had no problem with the Firestone article the way it was before Travb made major revisions and then had it protected. It was tidy, well referenced and served its purpose. The well referenced material which Travb keeps talking about is a CNN article from 2005 which actually states that it is unfinished and may be updated. The other is an obscure reference in PDF format from www.unmil.org which no longer exists. In my opinion this is hardly well referenced material.
So basicaly my views are
* that the Firestone article be returned to 99940616 and then anything added since then worthy of inclusion can be put back in.
* that the Bridgestone article and Firestone article remain seperate.
* that the Liberian article remain seperate and it be improved on.
 Mobile 01Talk 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile 01

message: Well, I tried. 
Please refrain from calling my offer a "threat" and question my genuiness. I felt a little hurt and defensive.  What would you suggest as a comprimise Mobile? You state your wishes, but I see no comprimise offers. Travb (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travb

message: I think Mobile01 summed up the reason we had to go to mediation in the first place:
:"I do not offer any compromise as this is not my function."
Mediation is created when compromise fails. It is the first step towards arbitration because editors refuse to comprimise.
Please don't state things which you have not investigated.  
:The sources Travb cites in his answer are not the sources he claims to have entered, these are other sources entered by other editors.
The vast majority, if not all of the sources are my own.  I would appreciate if you retract that statment.
RE: This is an old debate which was closed out and no such evidence was proven to that effect.
I respectfully disagree that wikipedia violations, some of which are only created several days ago, are "old". I also disagree with this statment "no such evidence was proven to that effect."  Take for example the archive edit war where you consitently removed my comments on the talk page, some only one minute old.   Actions speak louder than words.  You summed up your edit history in one sentence: "I do not offer any compromise as this is not my function."
I will be away from wikipedia for a couple of days. I am tired of this prolonged edit war. Every single one of my referenced edits. several hundred words, to the Firestone page have been deleted by Mobile 01 and the bridgestone employees. 
I continue to offer comprimises to Mobile 01, and she has refused.
I am going to ask the admin to close this mediation. Since no comprimise seems possible, and I am growing weary of these accusations and tactics, binding arbritation appears like the only solution, where I can clearly lay out the history of Mobile 01 willingness to "comprimise". Please close the mediation Travb (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travb

message: :Thank you so much for taking the time to respond User:CLS14, I appreciate all your work on Bridgestone and look forward to working with you some more in the future.Travb (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for all your hard work Bobblehead, your views were very helpful when I was actively trying to stop the bridgestone employees from removing well sourced information. We go back almost a year now, correctTravb (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: RebelAt, I appreciate your time in being an unofficial referee and teaching us all, myself included how to be a better editor.<Travb (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And finally, thanks Mobile01 for teaching me how to build conensus by focusing on the good qualities of fine editors such as yourself.  I will now distribute barnstars to those who help me much more frequently than I did before.  You have made the article a better article.  I really love the table you first created...Travb (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mobile01, the point of this mediation is to discuss the content of the article, not the actions of Travb.  If you have concerns about Travb's actions, take it to WP:RFC.  Your latest tirades have added nothing to the mediation and are solely for your own purposes and could be considered counter-productive to the mediation.  You have not been innocent in what lead to this mediation and trying to characterize this as solely the fault of Travb is revisionism.  How about we wait for Stevertigo's decision and continue from there instead of trying to turn this page into a soapbox. --Bobblehead 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm> Oh yes... You are completely right, Mobile01.  I'm completely biased against you.  Matter of fact, there is a grand conspiracy against you and I'm the ringleader. </sarcasm> But seriously, I have other ways in which to counsel Travb, so just because you don't see my comments to him on this page, don't assume I'm not making them. --Bobblehead 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, for people that are collaborating, Travb and I sure do hold different opinions on matters.  I seem to recall that during Travb's sockpuppetry case against you and his hoping to get you blocked, I was suggesting you only get a warning for the third person reference to yourself and counseled to make sure you logged in before editing on the anon edits he found.  Seriously, the point of this mediation is to improve the quality of the article and to move beyond the events leading up to this point, not rehashing them over and over again and jump at shadows.  Perhaps you should try and assume good faith or else this mediation will lead nowhere. --Bobblehead 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Business

message: Mediation seems to be getting off track which is really a shame. We are here at mediation because the content of the article is in question. An article that up until the 11th January was quite well balanced and informative. One user, Travb - Took it upon himself to make over 40 edits to the article on 11th January, thus changing the articles contents considerably. This user then had the page protected by an admin, which prevented any other editor from reverting his mass edits.
 Mobile 01Talk 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mobile01, the point of this mediation is to discuss the content of the article, not the actions of Travb.  If you have concerns about Travb's actions, take it to WP:RFC.  Your latest tirades have added nothing to the mediation and are solely for your own purposes and could be considered counter-productive to the mediation.  You have not been innocent in what lead to this mediation and trying to characterize this as solely the fault of Travb is revisionism.  How about we wait for Stevertigo's decision and continue from there instead of trying to turn this page into a soapbox. --Bobblehead 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm> Oh yes... You are completely right, Mobile01.  I'm completely biased against you.  Matter of fact, there is a grand conspiracy against you and I'm the ringleader. </sarcasm> But seriously, I have other ways in which to counsel Travb, so just because you don't see my comments to him on this page, don't assume I'm not making them. --Bobblehead 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, for people that are collaborating, Travb and I sure do hold different opinions on matters.  I seem to recall that during Travb's sockpuppetry case against you and his hoping to get you blocked, I was suggesting you only get a warning for the third person reference to yourself and counseled to make sure you logged in before editing on the anon edits he found.  Seriously, the point of this mediation is to improve the quality of the article and to move beyond the events leading up to this point, not rehashing them over and over again and jump at shadows.  Perhaps you should try and assume good faith or else this mediation will lead nowhere. --Bobblehead 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile 01

message: I never realised some people could get so heated about Wikipedia, especially about an article regarding a tyre company! However it is good to learn about the mediation process. Cls14 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this has anything to do with an article in wikipedia. It is about one editor making 40 edits to the article on one day to completely change the article content to his own version and claiming that everyone wanted it his way. Many edits he replaced had been removed or reworded previously and discussed on the discussion page. It is about another editors attempts to return the article to NPOV. It is about preventing an editor from claiming ownership and resorting to page protection (after he got his edits in place) to prevent any further editing of his version. It's about wiki stalking and false accusations of sockpuppetry to further that editors cause and to discredit the other. People will always get heated when they are being repressed, whether that be by a fascist government, the school yard bully or a wiki editor.  Mobile 01Talk 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lol 

message: Mobile, you removed some of the comments you made, stating in comment the reason was because I suggested it. I did not, and removing the text as you did gives the reader the impression that my admonishing comments directed at your comments are instead directed at Travb's comments. Please restore them now. Note, if you want to correct yourself in talk pages, a simple strikethrough will suffice to indicate your change.-Stevertigo 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the comments based on a request from another user and also based on your suggestions that my comments were not appropriate. If you remove/strike your own comment, "a lot has transpired on the page since then and it's starting to get ugly." Your comments here are notably ugly. Please keep it civil." so as to restore the correct flow, then all will be hunky dory again. While I realised that leaving your comment behind would alter the perception of your comment, it would have been totally wrong for me to delete it, I assumed you would do so yourself immediately, once you realised it no longer applied. Mobile 01Talk 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand you may not be familiar with our sensitive customs for handling talk pages. Altering the comments of others is forbidden. While removing your own comments is less so, doing so in a way that changes the meaning of other comments is not permissable. You did not alert me to the change, so assuming I would notice was unwise. I understand that you want to sanitize your comments. You have my permission to remove my comment. -Stevertigo 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Mobile 01Talk 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper tampering of discussion 

message: A lot has transpired on this discussion so far and I am wondering if we are actually getting anywhere with the mediation. Could the mediator give a response of his opinions of just where we are at and what if any decisions/suggestions/agreements have been agreed so far. Thanks. Mobile 01Talk 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive been busy. I'm more interested in your view about where things are at. -Stevertigo 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest I feel I am in over my head here. I really don't know all that much about Wikipedia to play with the big boys. For what it is worth I definitely feel that the Liberian issue should be seperate. Whether or not the two company pages merge is not all that much of an issue to me although if you put a gun to my head I'd say they should be merged. Cls14 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I have no issues with the Firestone page. One thing I will add is that I never knew Firestone still have international factories/outlets which operate soley with the Firestone name. Cls14 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how the page appears presently.  Hopefully, it works for everyone else. Good work folks. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Good work, people. -Stevertigo 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are we?