Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Case Opened on 10:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Statement by AKADriver
My position is that the "Criticism" section of this article is unencyclopedic editorial, and presents a biased POV by only representing negative opinions. Any attempts to alter the content, add positive opinions, shorten the section to improve the flow and readability of the article, add POV-check flags, or remove the section are reverted within hours by SpinyNorman alone. Consensus built by the RFC seems to indicate all editors except for SpinyNorman support shortening or removing the section.

The article's history shows frequent reverts of this nature: 

Zunaid condensed the section and removed the offending content following the RFC. This version is acceptable to me, even though there is no precedent for criticism in an automotive article.

Addendum: Civil in word as he may have become in the past few days since this request was posted, this S2000 article case is still a clear case of bullyish POV-pushing and original research. Look at the sources added in the past few days and you'll find overwhelmingly positive reviews with one negative statement pulled out of context to push his POV.

Statement by Jsw663 (cabal mediator)
After reviewing the case history, I thought about mediating. However, given that the user SpinyNorman has been imposing his version of his edit repeatedly over some time already, as well as his history being chequered by bans, as well as his statements on the discussion page, suggest that mediation will be useless, especially as others have agreed to compromise (e.g. AKADriver agreed to compromise on a shorter criticsm section, even though he didn't like such a section). Moreover, SpinyNorman is unwilling to participate in any form of mediation or compromise of his written work (see the talk page of the entry concerned). Informal mediation has been tried but has been completely ineffective. I thought that the arb. committee would be in a better place to judge for themselves whether penalties, sanctions and/or just a warning would be most appropriate in this case. (After all, only arbitrators can effect binding decisions and take more serious steps). Thanks. Jsw663 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize that the ArbCom primarily resolves interpersonal disputes rather than that over content only, but this has spilled over into a SpinyNorman versus every other editor on the Honda S2000 page. How can content be resolved until the ArbCom decides whether SpinyNorman's persistent and constant edits are fair (ie just defending his views) or unfair (ie going overboard in making the page one essentially written by SpinyNorman instead of a genuinely encyclopaedic page). Jsw663 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SpinyNorman
This case seems to be about the attempt by a handful of disgruntled POV-pushers to censor references to legitimate criticism of the vehicle by the motoring press. Despite repeated attempts to maintain balance in the article that are thwarted by various editors who will tolerate no criticism, they have resorted to escalating this issue in an attempt to get their POV enforced by inducing the arbcom to impose it by some sort of executive fiat. Personally, I would ask the arbcom to reject the case as a waste of their time --SpinyNorman 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also, the claim that I have been unwilling to compromise is patently absurd.  I have accepted many valid concerns about the content of the criticism section and modified considerably - as well as acceppting considerable modification of it by others since it was originally added.  It is true that I won't accept the removal of legitimate criticism, but that's not being uncompromising, that's resisting the imposition of bias.  To paraphrase Barry Goldwater...  compromising with POV-pushers is no virtue and being uncompromising in the defense of objectivity is no vice.  --SpinyNorman 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (to address the points made by Jnbwade69): If the S2000 only oversteered with unskilled drivers, then why does the automotive press comment on that characteristic so widely?  Do they all send unskilled drivers to test the cars?  I think not.  That being said, I don't think that the tendency to oversteer is, in and of itself, a problem and I certainly don't understand why you're comparing it to exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers.  Oversteer isn't a safety issue and none of the comments in the criticism section say otherwise.  But the fact is that the car has a pronounced tendency to oversteer.  Speaking from personal experience, I can say that the tendency is far out of proportion to the car's power and design.  I have driven cars with far more power and even lighter weight but with less tendency to oversteer.  Also, the criticism of the car's power curve, gearing and NVH is perfectly valid.  These are valid criticisms of ANY car.  How can you justify your apparent desire to censor criticism of the car because you don't agree with it?  Honda got a lot of things right with that car, but they did get some things wrong and since this article isn't intended to be a hagiography, it should include the good with the bad. SpinyNorman 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (to address new points made by Jnbwade69): I find it interesting that the user is complaining about my inclusion of critical remarks from an otherwise generally positive review.  If I was really looking to do a "hatchet job" on the article in question, would't my agenda be better served by including remarks from negative reviews?  I also find it interesting that there is any complaint at all about criticism in an article so inherently subjective as the discussion of a popular sports car.  --SpinyNorman 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (to address comments made by JoshuaZ): I would like to point out that the majority of the 3RR blocks made against me were completely unwarranted and based on inaccurate claims made about me by others - basically people who are pissed off at their own POV being challenged.  If anyone has any substantive questions or concerns about ANY of my edits, they are welcome to post such questions on my talk page and I will be happy to answer.  Unlike so many people here, I don't make changes that I can't objectively and rationally defend.  --SpinyNorman 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to request that Jayjg recuse himself from the proceedings as he has a history of bias in dealing with me. --SpinyNorman 10:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jnbwade69
As I said in on the talk page, I am willing to compromise on the criticism section. I would concede to allow a statement on the car's tendency to oversteer if a reference can be found from the mainstream automobile press, or even the mainstream general press. This only seems to be a problem with unskilled drivers. Were not talking about exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers here. There is no widespread social impact to the car being "tail happy". The changes in the car to address daily driver comfort are already found in the Models section. All the stuff about the torque, horsepower and engine noise has to go. This is not valid criticism. Honda's intent was to created a car in the spirit of it's S800 roadster from the sixties. A car with a 0.8 liter engine, 70hp, and an 8000rpm redline BTW. Anyone who test drives an S2000 before buying would know this in about 30 seconds. The very nature of a VTEC engine is that all the torque and horsepower in at the top end. What does he want, for Honda to put another engine in the car. Many bought one because on these characteristics, and do not consider them shortcomings. It is a four wheel superbike, if you will. To address the revert war, I think the only alternative is to revoke SpinyNorman's privilege of editing the article. Evidently he owned one, hated it, and now has some sort of axe to grind. I respect that he has very strong feelings on this, but it seems to have clouded his judgement. He states that he has considered other editors opinions, but the Criticism section gets longer and more convoluted every time he edits it. Please review the article history and the talk page. They speak for themselves. Thank you for your time. --Jnbwade69 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum:  Also, I find his repeated use of this review of the car on Pistonheads.com  to be disingenuous at best.  He is basically picking and choosing certain phrases and quotes to build a negative picture from a generally positive review. (4 out of 5 stars) Why? To make a point the reviewer had no intent of making.  Not what one would expect from a trustworthy wikipedia editor.  --Jnbwade69 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zunaid
Repeated attempts to encourage SpinyNorman to accept the consensus of all editors involved in the article (as is the Wikipedia way) have been met with accusations of "censorship". SpinyNorman seems to take any edits to the Criticism section personally and wants to turn what is a purely editorial conflict into a personal one of "me vs them". The initial Criticism section introduced by him was extremely long compared to the rest of the article, did not "flow" neatly with the content, and was filled with extreme POV language. My attempt to summarise it and introduce a consistent writing style, as well as rewrite it in more neutral terms without removing any of the specific criticisms mentioned was summarily reverted as "censorship" and has started a revert war which shows no sign of ending without the intervention of the ArbCom. Zunaid 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept to examine behavior issues. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. SimonP 12:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 13:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.


 * Pass 5-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption
2) Users who engage in tendentious editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility
3) Users are expected to be reasonably civil to one another. When a dispute arises, civility is especially important.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Matter at issue
4) Regardless of the content of a request for arbitration, the resulting arbitration may consider the behavior of the parties which is at issue.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The nominal focus of this dispute is which contains a criticism section which is maintained in its more elaborate iteration by  ( is a sock). A more important question is the behavior of SpinyNorman and those who oppose his edits. The focus of this arbitration is his behavior both on  and other disputed articles such as, ,  and.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
3) has created ( which he uses to back up his positions.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring by SpinyNorman
5) SpinyNorman has frequently engaged in edit warring, see block log.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by SpinyNorman
6) SpinyNorman has engaged in incivility bordering on personal attack      Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman is likely User:JonGwynne
7) SpinyNorman is likely User:JonGwynne (see Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence), an editor who was the subject of two previous Arbitration cases (Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute, which placed him on probation for similar behaviors, including personal attacks and edit warring, and which ultimately resulted in him being banned from Wikipedia for 3 months.


 * Pass 5-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

SpinyNorman placed on probation
1) SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman placed on personal attack parole
2) SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman placed on revert parole
3) SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman is placed on general probation
4) Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman to edit with one account
5) SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should SpinyNorman violate any ban imposed under this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000.


 * Pass 6-0 at 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.