Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Gunter

First assertion

In the article List of fastest cars by acceleration, SpinyNorman has since 24-AUG been removing the majority of entries on the list without any in depth reasoning on the discussion page. The few times individual cars were discussed he would continue removing these entries from the list despite no agreement being reached on the talk page. He has repeatedly 3RR'd and so far i have had to RV 15 times. I have attempted to have a Admin and Mediator help resolve but Spiny is stubborn in his ways and looking at his talk page, is doing the same thing in numerous other articles. Users like this negate the joy of contributing to wikipedia. Gunter 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's commented about it to me. [2]. His claim seems to be that the cars he is removing are "self-published" performance numbers -- John Lingenfelter reported that he did 0-60 in 1.9 in a modified Corvette. In fact, the link is to lingenfelter's website [3]. That's not to say it is untrue and we definitely have some self-reported stats in wiki, but Spiny's argument seems legitimage enough. Justforasecond 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Jsw663 (cabal mediator) (Only for the Honda S2000 page / talk page)

First assertion: Unwillingness to compromise

• The main page's history here should show that SpinyNorman has consistently reverted others' edits. Please see AKADriver's statement for more details.
• As for the talk page, the following are DIRECT QUOTES from SpinyNorman:
  • The 19th May 2006 ones here:
  • "The reason the article has a criticism section is because the car has been criticized. No car is perfect."
  • "To exclude criticism is inherently POV. I'm restoring it."
  • "I can tell you from personal experience that the criticism is not only valid but downplayed in this article"
  • "The criticism section isn't disproportionately large compared to the whole of the article, what's the problem?"
  • "But there is no absolute prohibition on "weasel words", it is more a guideline than a rule."

• • "They're designed to take advantage of tax and insurance loopholes in Japan. I held up my end, I gave you several examples of engines that produce as much or more torque than the F20C." (24 May 2006)
  • "I restored the censored section. There is no excuse for removing legitimate criticism from the article." (20 August 2006)
  • "Censorship is censorship and it WILL NOT STAND." (25 August 2006) (in response to Zunaid's request not to let the page undergo a revert war.
  • "Sorry you're disturbed, but removing legitimate criticism of a subject from the article can't really be considered anything but censorship - particularly when the only motivation for its removal is disagreement with it and/or the feeling that the criticism somehow demeans the car." (29 August 2006) (in response to 27 Aug - 28 Aug, where several editors concurred on a shorter criticsm section as a compromise)
  • "To remove discussion of its weaknesses because a handful of "fanboys" can't tolerate the subject of their adulation being criticized... well, that's just wrong." (29 August 2006)
  • "Just disputing something doesn't necessarily mean the dispute is valid." (30 August 2006)
  • "Just because I object to the censorship of valid criticism, I'm supposed to be in a "childish rage"? Perhaps you should concentrate more on the content of the article and less on personal insults." (30 August 2006)

Some less-than-sparklingly civil comments in there, but this seems like an over-reaction to me. What's wrong with saying The reason the article has a criticism section is because the car has been criticized. No car is perfect? The car has been criticized, after all. Or Just disputing something doesn't necessarily mean the dispute is valid? Seems like a fair enough comment. This one implies another editor was uncivil, but Spiny seems fair Just because I object to the censorship of valid criticism, I'm supposed to be in a "childish rage"? Calling someone a fanboy isn't really a nice thing to do, but when criticism of a certain vehicle is tirelessly squashed, makes you wonder if there is a fanboy or two in the bunch. I know a certain editor called others "crakkka" repeatedly and was put on probation for it. Calling someone a fanboy seems minor in comparison. Justforasecond 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Second assertion: POV in criticism

• "Another criticism of the S2000 is the way the car is geared. The short gearing allows the car to accelerate reasonably quickly, yet it forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise while travelling at highway speeds" - lack of sources.
• "Many drivers commented on the early cars' tendency for snap oversteer..."
• "Find someone who thinks NVH is a good thing." (24 May 2006)
• "There's nothing wrong with shortening the lower ratios for improved acceleration but what's why not make the top gear suitable for long-distance travel? This certainly doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. With a six-speed transmission, there's simply no excuse not to give the car some "legs"." (5 September 2006)
• September edits' summary: [[4]]

Without the diffs, I'd say that at least twoof these smell like talk page comments, not article edits. I also can't tell if he didn't include sources for the first comment without a diff. The general description of the S2000 is accurate -- quick acceleration but substantially higher-than-average revs at upper highway speeds. And higher RPMs typically mean noisier cabin. "Force"/"Endure" is POV -- some drivers might relish the extra noise. Justforasecond 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Third assertion: Harassment of other users

• "I'm still waiting... where are these "scads" of sports cars from the '00s with less than 100 lb/ft of torque?" (24 May 2006)
• "Oh... so you want to be condescending. Well, two can play that game. Perhaps you weren't aware that the car has more than one forward gear." (5 September 2006)
• "I guess the whole concept of the power:weight ratio doesn't mean anything to you. Oh well. It isn't my job to educate you." (7 September 2006)
• "Nice try short pants, but the MX-5's specific torque figure..." (8 September 2006)

• • • This is the summary of what has happened on the Honda S2000 talk page alone. The almost paranoic control over the content of the main Honda S2000 page can be shown simply by looking at the history of the page, esp. end August, 2006. The quotes made above are entirely SpinyNorman's, and reposted here so that you don't have to 'fish' for evidence on the talk page. Jsw663 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • P.S. I know next to nothing about cars, nor do I care much about them. This is why SpinyNorman's first paragraph in his evidence below about their article being edited mercilessly simply does not apply to me (because I don't know any of the lingo or details about cars in general). However, I do find it ironic that someone who tells other editors that their written work should be allowed to be mercilessly edited should not be reflected with his own criticisms (since it's intolerable "censorship" then!!). Until proven otherwise, I also want to point out that SpinyNorman has not yet presented any counter-evidence. This is why I felt the ArbCom would be a better judge as to whether such uncompromising behaviour, which has infuriated many other editors (yet how many people do you see supporting SpinyNorman's "authoritative version"?), is acceptable, or if not, what sanctions / penalties would be most appropriate. Mediation is impossible with someone who is so steadfast in his opinion - the article no longer becomes encyclopaedic. Not only does one version misinform through expressions that is not always backed up by sources, it also ruins the open atmosphere of Wikipedia, which traditionally tolerates many different views. Jsw663 00:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • PPS SpinyNorman's behaviour is now bordering on the outrageously unacceptable - see here. Belittling administrators and his constant 3RR violations (his latest one extended to a week because of it) has gone beyond all boundaries of 'reasonableness'. Jsw663 09:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The diffs are needed to see the full quotes in context. One of your links has "Humus Sapiens" telling Spiny to "Stop playing a clown"[5]. I can't find the "short pants" comment on the page at all. I do see "Educate yourself to some elementary mathematics and calculate which car has the superior power to weight ratio. Hint: it's not your daddy's MX-5, little boy", posted as anon directed towards Spiny[6]. The context seems to be a feud between Spiny and an anon. Of the two, the anon is a lot nastier. Anyway, we need diffs and context for this. Justforasecond 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by --SpinyNorman 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First assertion

The allegations made by Jsw663 are completely invalid. I will dispense with them individually in a moment, but they seem to me simply the attempt by someone who disagrees with my edit to try to involve the arbcom in their disagreement. I would simply point Jsw to the disclaimer at the bottom of every wikipedia page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it"

• The claim that I am unwilling to compromise is obviously incorrect. The S2000 page has many examples of my willingness and even eagerness to compromize. For example, the criticism section originally had no references. Several users pointed this out and insisted that claims about the car in the criticism section be backed up with supporting evidence from autmotive journalists. I readily compromised on this point and provided support for many of the claims and removed those claims that didn't have direct support.

• The claim that I have "consistently reverted others' edits" is also simply not true. There are many edits to the page that I have not reverted. In fact, I encouraged Redrum to add the material on sales figures despite his obvious hostility to me.

• None of the statements attributed to me in the first section are in any way incorrrect or inappropriate.

• It is true that I am unwilling to compromise on censorship. Sorry, but I don't think censorship in any form is appropriate on wikipedia and I will continue to absolutely oppose it. Just so we're clear, I define "censorship" as the removal of factual information from articles without any valid, supporting reason. And removing criticism from an article about a car because some people don't like (or don't agree with) that criticism can't be described as anything but censorship.

As for the individual quotes, I've read them and even out of context as they're presented, they are simple, factual statements and I don't see how anyone would have any sort of problem with them.

Second assertion

Again, this section has absolutely no validity. Once again, I will dispense with the comments individually, but there is no indication in those statements of the POV alleged by Jsw663.

• "Another criticism of the S2000 is the way the car is geared. The short gearing allows the car to accelerate reasonably quickly, yet it forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise while travelling at highway speeds". This is another neutral, factual statement. As a given car's engine increases in revs, the interior noise and engine vibration increases as well. There is no reason to suspect that the S2000 is different in this regard from every other car ever made. Is anyone seriously trying to suggest that the S2000's NVH levels actually go down as engine revs increase? Of course not, it would be absurd to even imply such a thing. Yet there are people who apparently object to pointing out the fact of NVH.

• "Many drivers commented on the early cars' tendency for snap oversteer...". Again, a factual statement. This isn't POV at all, it is simply reporting an established and documented fact.

• "Find someone who thinks NVH is a good thing." . This statement was made in response to the suggestion by another contributor that some undefined group of people think NVH is a good thing. I simply challenged them to back up this claim. They failed to do so.

• "There's nothing wrong with shortening the lower ratios for improved acceleration but what's why not make the top gear suitable for long-distance travel? This certainly doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. With a six-speed transmission, there's simply no excuse not to give the car some "legs". This one is my personal opinion. It isn't included in the article itself, but on the talk page to illustrate my opinion. The last time I checked, there wasn't any rule against expressing personal opinions on the talk pages. --SpinyNorman 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So, to sum up, there is no evidence to support Jsw663's claim that my criticism has been "POV" - apart from personal opinions expressed on the talk page which aren't relevant.

Third assertion

This allegation is the most ludicrous of the group. With the exception of a few unfortunate comments made in response to the provocations of an anonymous troll (which I'd be perfectly willing to retract if requested), none of the examples given show any sort of "harrassment".

• "I'm still waiting... where are these "scads" of sports cars from the '00s with less than 100 lb/ft of torque?" That's a simple and quite civil question. Another poster made the claim that there were "scads" of sports cars from the modern era whose engines make less that 100 lb/ft of torque. However, when pressed, the claim couldn't be substantiated.

• "Oh... so you want to be condescending. Well, two can play that game. Perhaps you weren't aware that the car has more than one forward gear." That's not harassment either. Condescending? Perhaps. However, I was demonstrating condescention to illustrate to the person who was quite offensive and condescending, that this behavior isn't usually appreciated by the recipient. Instead of calling them names, I simply pointed out that I didn't appreciate being condescended to. Could I have done it with a bit more tact? Probably. But I wasn't the first one in the exchange to be rude.

And while we're on the subject of rudeness, I'd like to point out that this isn't the first time that Jsw663 has engaged in namecalling himself/herself. This is the second time they've called me "paranoid" simply for standing up to attempts to censor the article.

Miscellaneous Comments

I'd also like to address the claim made by several people here that because some other car articles don't have criticism sections, that it isn't appropriate that the S2000 have one. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you'd like to add criticism sections to other cars, feel free to do so. But just because other articles don't have it, that's no reason to remove it from this one. Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not censoring them.

I'm also puzzled about the claim put forward by so many people here about the alleged POV contained in statements made by other people that I have included in the article. So am I supposed to be biased because I've referenced complaints made by third-parties (automotive journalists) about the car?

I'm amused by persistent attempts to misrepresent my comments... evidently to persuade the arbcom to impose some sort of punishment. Presumably in the form of a restriction on my editing, so I'm not "allowed" to challenge the POV of the handful of disgruntled editors here who apparently have no other beef with me other than that I have the audacity to disagree with them.

Let's remember that debate and controversy are good things.

To sum up

Now that I've completely demolished the so-called "evidence", can we wrap this? Jsw663 should be embarrassed for wasting the arbcom's time with this case.

Evidence presented by AKADriver

As an aside, I fully support the evidence gathered by Jsw663, and the following statements are in addition to those, along with my statement in the original request for arbitration.

First assertion: Unwillingness to compromise

• A shortened criticism section was created in response to the Request for Comment [7] which all other editors concerned including myself have expressed agreement with. The shortened section makes all the same points and could use all the same references but has been reverted multiple times by SpinyNorman. [8] [9] [10] [11]
• POV-check templates were placed on the criticism section after discussion of the neutrality of the section began but were removed by SpinyNorman multiple times. [12] [13] [14] This shows a clear unwillingness to accept that there even was a discussion taking place.

Second assertion: POV in Criticism

• Any attempt at rational discussion about the article on the talk page is met with more hemming and hawing about the car itself. I quoted a few excerpts and tried to explain how I believed they constitute a biased POV: [15] and as seen from the current form of the talk page these have only spawned more discussion about the nature of the car rather than the article itself. Clearly there is a personal interest here.
• SpinyNorman asserts the attribute of noise as necessarily negative, but any description of a sports car, including Wikipedia's article on the subject, shows that passenger comfort is not a priority in their design. As the owner of a different, louder car myself, I don't find myself "forced" to "endure" anything in a quieter S2000.
• SpinyNorman's user talk shows a history checkered by bans and blocks for forcing POV on articles and 3RR violations. [16]
• SpinyNorman removed information about the car that gave a positive spin, citing "original research" [17] however the same concepts (low engine displacement, high revs, motorcycle-like engine behavior) have since been added by him to the Criticism section to reinforce a negative spin [18] or claimed on the talk page as definitive negative attributes. [19]
• SpinyNorman reverted a statement which cast the car's sound level in a more neutral light within an hour with no explanation. [20]

Third assertion: Harassment of other users

• "I'm still waiting... where are these "scads" of sports cars from the '00s with less than 100 lb/ft of torque?" was written in response to a statement about cars from the 1950s onward. [21] I'd be willing to believe SpinyNorman just misunderstood the question if that weren't prefaced by, "Oh come on... you're seriously going to compare vintage MGs and Austin Healys with a Honda S2000?" [22]

This is a criticism section about a modern car. How meaningful is it to say "well the car is a lot better than cars made 50 years ago?" It's like saying the new pentium has a higher clock rate than the UNIVAC. He's just asking for modern examples of cars without a lot of torque. Justforasecond 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourth assertion: Use of sockpuppets

SpinyNorman seems to be using new accounts to dodge blocks and to use as sockpuppets to support his POV. In addition to the evidence presented by SlimVirgin below, another username MesaBoogie has appeared with all the same favorite articles as SpinyNorman and JohnGwynne. His edit history [23] includes only articles from which SpinyNorman has been blocked for 3RR violations and POV pushing.

•  Confirmed CheckUser confirms that MesaBoogie is a sockpuppet of SpinyNorman. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am not a sockpuppet. If you have proof lets see it. Otherwise shut your cakehole. --MesaBoogie 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have doublechecked this. There is clear proof by checkuser using one of the two ips MesaBoogie has edited with. In addition the edits of MesaBoogie themselves are sufficient proof. Fred Bauder 14:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zunaid

• Firstly, I'd like to point out that there are two issues here, and that the ArbCom should make a decision on both of these:

1. Whether the content of Honda S2000 (in particular the Criticism section as it currently stands) is considered encyclopedic. The ArbCom should make a ruling on the content of the article, separate from the SpinyNorman issue.
2. SpinyNorman's conduct towards other editors etc.

I will tackle the two issues separately.

Honda S2000

Precedent

It is unprecedented that a Criticism section in an automobile article runs to the length and level of detail as the one in Honda S2000. To illustrate, compare two of the car's contemporaries, Nissan 350Z and Mazda RX-8, (disclaimer: I frequently edit in both articles). The 350Z has a shortish criticism section which mentions the hard ride and heavy weight, while the RX-8, which had an engine recall this year, doesn't even have such a section, the recall being mentioned within the "Powertrain" section. The type of Criticism mentioned in the S2000 article relates to things such as oversteer, torque and NVH levels. These are design considerations made by the engineers during the design process, they are not flaws of the vehicle (such as e.g. an engine problem requiring a recall) and anyone looking to purchase the car would know this from a test-drive.

Further evidence that a Criticism section is unprecedented even in a sports car, which traditonally compromises on comfort in favour of performance: Audi TT, Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class, BMW Z4, Porsche Boxster, Lotus Elise, Chrysler Crossfire (the Crossfire in particular has been criticised for the low output of its V6 engine and the poor handling), none of which has a criticism section.

NPOV considerations

Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints...in proportion to the prominence of each, also: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and finally: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements.

What the current Criticism section does is give undue weight to verifiable and sourced statements critical of the car. The S2000 has by far received good reviews, and thus any criticism section (if there is a need for one) should be shortened accordingly.

Conclusion

That some cars perform better in certain sectors is immaterial (and in fact quite obvious - different strokes for different folks at different prices), but it is not for Wikipedia to write a car review or car comparison. That sort of thing can be found on any number of websites and in magazines. We should stick to articles, and for a car, the ArbCom should decide what sort of content is appropriate (if not in general, then at least in this specific case).

SpinyNorman

Talk:Honda S2000 and the article history refers (and speak for themselves in most cases).

Insertion of strongly POV terms

SpinyNorman continues to revert changes ([24] [25] [26] [27] etc....there's many more in the history) to the Criticism section to include strongly POV statements such as:

• One reviewer described the 162 ft·lb as "measly"
• The introduction of electronic stability control in 2006 was deemed necessary
• The short gearing ... forces occupants to endure high-engine revs and correspondingly high levels of engine noise

It seems as if SpinyNorman seeks out the most damning, POV statements about the car and quotes these in the article instead of using more neutral terms which describe the same thing. In addition, he adds quotes from every possible negative reviewer rather than writing the section in an "overview" style and providing references (which would integrate better with the rest of the article). Any attempt to rewrite (into more neutral terms) or prune the section is reverted with accusations of "censorship" in the edit summary (as the above diffs show).

Selective comparison with other cars

Over the history of the article SpinyNorman has compared the S2000 to various other cars which have more displacement and/or cylinders (and thus do not offer a direct or fair comparison). Since these competitors are either not made any more or are significantly more expensive than the Honda, it is clear that the comparisons are only made to cast the S2000 in the worst light possible.

• This version [28] compares the torque figure of the 2L and 2.2L 4-cylinder engines in the Honda with the 3L Porsche 944 (a comparison which it obviously loses).

I can't tell if he wrote this, he is reinserting an obliterated criticism section. But even if so, the edit says "Despite the high power output of the engine, the torque was quite low even compared to other sports cars with four-cylinder engines (e.g. the 1989 Porsche 944's four-cylinder engine produces 206 ft·lbf (279 Nm) as a result of its higher displacement of 3.0 L).". This is fair -- the larger displacement is mentioned.

• In the same version, mention is made that the car's competitors are available with "more cylinders and/or more displacement". This is not even a criticism and is merely placed there to flesh out the section.

The competitors listed are reasonable -- 2-seat convertibles with good (but not supercar) performance. "In addition, many of the S2000's competitors (BMW Z4, Porsche Boxster, Nissan 350Z convertible) offer engines with more cylinders and/or more displacement which produce almost as much (if not more) power as well as more torque and competitors like the Lotus Elise had a higher power to weight ratio even though they had less total power." Justforasecond 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• This version (ignore the broken table format) shows a comparison of the top-end gear ratios with a Corvette Z06 (7L V8) and a Dodge Viper (8.3L V10), cars with much bigger engines which cost a lot more. This was challenged by User:Jrrs on the talk page [29], who subsequently populated the table with cars that could reasonably be compared to the S2000 (over a series of edits) [30].

He didn't insert that information, he just reformatted it. 4200 RPMs at 75 MPH is quite high as anyone who has driven a car with a tach. will attest. Here's a comment from Spiny about the table that seems reasonable to me -- I agree there ought to be more cars in the list and have repeatedly invited people to add more - though I haven't had any takers yet (oops: spoke to soon - thanks for adding the cars). I've added the RX8 myself, but I'm reluctant to add more for fear that certain people here will start whining about the length of the section again. Still, I'll go ahead and add the BMW Z4. I doubt many people would object to that as a comparison[31] Justforasecond 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to accept consensus of opinion

I refer to the Talk page for evidence here. SpinyNorman refuses to accept the opinion of at least 4 other editors (myself, AKADriver, RedruM, Jnbwade69 and an anon), as well as outside opinion following a Request for Comment (SB Johnny and an anon), that the Criticism section is unwieldy and needs to be trimmed and/or removed entirely. In fact he refuses to discuss the issue (merely restating his POV every time he is challenged) and seems to think that his way is the only correct way and that everyone else is POV-pushing. This is blatantly against the Wikipedia way of editing by consensus.

Constant reversion

As can be seen in the history (and alluded to in all the arguments above), SpinyNorman constantly and consistently reverts any changes to the Criticism section, despite the fact that the majority of editors disagree with him. What compounds this problem is his refusal to discuss the issue rationally and come to a compromise (which most of the other editors are prepared to do, even against their wishes).

If this is true, just provide some diffs. "constantly" is a tough thing to prove though. I looked at the talk page of the article and he seems like he has discussed and compromised a great detail. Justforasecond 03:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

History of edit-warring

A look at his block log and talk page reveals that SpinyNorman is a regular edit-warrer on articles where he disagrees with others' opinions. He has been blocked numerous times for breaking the 3RR.

As someone who was blocked to the point of leaving wikipedia (only coming back today to address this injustice) I think this is a lame piece of "evidence". Speaking from experience, many, if not *most* blocks of long-time users are illegitimate. Most blocks of short timer users are legit (vandalism and all). Once you've been blocked enough times illegitimately, others will take a quick look at your log and assume "5 blocks, must be a bad apple..." There's little recourse when an admin blocks you for 24 hours (enter a huge rfarb process that ends up taking more time than the block itself just to clear your wikiname? please) Abusive admins know their way around: don't say someone broke 3RR, just say they were "edit-warring" or "being disruptive", either of which could consist of a single edit. One admin, "Slim Virgin" told me that she wasn't "edit warring", she was "spiny-warring" -- in other words, edit warring against Spiny Norman. She declared this, of all places, on the admini strator's noticeboard. Apparently it had become so acceptable for admins to harrass this editor that it could be declared in the open. I criticized her "spiny warring" and guess what? I was blocked. See how it goes? Justforasecond 21:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion/Requested action

SpinyNorman is a stubborn editor who constantly pushes his POV, refuses to accept other editors' opinions, and refuses to follow the Wikipedia principle of editing by consensus. His continued involvement in this article (and constant reversions of others' edits) is detrimental and discourages other editors (such as myself) from participating. He should be permanently banned from editing any car-related articles in future and, in light of his history of edit-warring and 3RRV's, should be blocked for a substantial length of time.

Evidence presented by JoshuaZ

My evidence has little concern for the Honda S2000 but focuses primarily on SpinyNorman's behavior on a variety of articles.

Spiny has engaged in personal attacks, extended incivility and failure to assume good faith

An example is here [32] Spiny then refused to admit that his comments constituted persona attacks: [33] And more incivility here[34]

Calling someone a POV pusher or calling their edits "pov pushing" is not very friendly and seems to violate AGF. But it happens as a matter of course. If this is the worst this editor has done, there are many other editors that should be penalized similarly. This would include many, many admins. Justforasecond 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Spiny Norman has edited tendentiously

At An Inconvenient Truth [35] Here Spiny responds completely ignoring earlier points[36] Here Spiny calls mainstream climate scientists "kooks"[37]

Looking at this I don't think he is ignoring earlier points. His argument is well reasoned (though I don't know it has factual basis). I haven't seen any policy calling about calling scientists "kooks", I also don't know that these folks are mainstream. Justforasecond 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know who is or is not mainstream in the matter, it would be appreciated if you would do some research before commenting. Furthermore, I did not claim that his calling them kooks was by itself a violation of policy but rather that it was part of a pattern of general tendentious editing. JoshuaZ 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had done YOUR research, you would have seen that the "editing" in question wasn't part of any article, but part of he talk page where the expression of a person's opinion isn't generally considered a problem. --SpinyNorman 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The tendentious editing was most blatant at Matthew Shepard [38] where he has over the last few months repatedly attempted to remove any connection between the Shepard article and Hate crime. This culminated in his recent attempts to argue that the Hate Crime category should be removed since Shepard's attackers were never charged with a hate crime. As Wantman observes at the top of that talk section "several months ago, to accommodate Spiny Norman, I split the category Hate crimes. It is now Category:Hate crime which is for articles that discuss the TOPIC of hate crime, and there is Category:Hate crimes (with an "s") that is for crimes that were prosecuted as hate crimes. While there may be disagreement about putting this article in the latter category, I cannot think of any reason not to put it in the former. This article discusses hate crime, it talks about the legislation that was proposed as a result of Matthew's murder. It is very NPOV to categorize this in the TOPIC of hate crime. Someone researching the topic, no matter what their bias, might want to visit this article. I do not want to rehash all the discussions that we have already have. I thought this was settled, but recently Spiny Norman removed the "Hate crime" categorization." [39] Spiny then proceeded to repeatedly argue that since the attackers were not charged with a hate crime it could not be in the category[40]. Spiny continued making this claim despite many other users(in fact all other users on the page) strongly disagreeing [41] [42]

If they weren't charged with a "hate crime", how can this be a "hate crime"? It's enough to list what happened: Shepard was gay, Shepard was brutally murdered, etc. We don't need to editorialize. BTW WP:BLP applies. The killers aren't dead yet. Justforasecond 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The hate crime category is sourced and in any case, even if it weren't sourced, Spiny never brought up any BLP issue, and it would be appreciated if you would put your observations in your own evidence section in the future. Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"sourced" <> "accurate". The fact is that Shepard's killers were never charged with, or convicted of, a hate crime. Ergo, any claim to the contrary is factually inaccurate. --SpinyNorman 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More recent problems

Spiny has been blocked for a week for repeated violations of WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jnbwade69

Just about everything I have stated in the past has been fully covered by Zunaid, AKADriver, and Jsw663. (Thanks for saving me the work, I'm new at this). Just a couple of points:

First assertion: Personal Attacks

Most of this has been discussed, but even now SpinyNorman is engaging in a heated exchange with an anonymous editor on the S2000 talk page.

"Sure, if some autmotive journalist don't mind frying the clutch of the test-car Honda loans him, I'm sure he could get the S2000 into the 5s, but the FACT remains that Honda quotes the time at 6.2 and all the posturing and whimpering on your part won't change that. As I never tire of pointing out, I own a car that will reliably return 0-60 times in the 5s... and I've owned an S2000. Because of this, I can say from personal experience that if you drive the car the way you would if you actually owned it, you couldn't get near 5.2 seconds for 0-60. Now go away little troll, I'm done with you." (italics mine)

Certainly the anonymous editor is just as guilty, but here we have yet another confrontational , name calling, verbal war involving SpinyNorman. His behavior actually seems to be getting worse over time, not better.

Second assertion: Unwilling to Compromise

He does not seem to understand the meaning of the word compromise or consensus of opinion, at least not in the Wiki community sense of the word. Every subject that he has strong feelings about becomes his own personal hegemony through constant reverts and bullying. I gave up even trying to edit the S2000 page. Why? It would be reverted in less than 24 hours. I am more that willing to have my writing edited mercilessly by others, but perhaps SpinyNorman does not have the same detachment to his contributions.

Precedent

I agree with Zunaid that in addition to the behavior issues of SpinyNorman, precedent is a central issue in this case. Unless there are widespread social implications in either the criticism or adulation of an automobile, what is the encyclopedic value of it? Has the product been recalled? Has it been implicated or investigated for safety problems? Has it won awards? Has this been reported in the mainstream media, not just the automotive press? This is what should determine whether on not the content of an automobile entry is encyclopedic or not. Perhaps some direction in this matter can be passed on to the WikiProject Automobiles group to be applied to all vehicles. The blatant, unsourced, negative POV in the Honda Odyssey entry alone is scary. (and no, I don't work for Honda.)

Evidence presented by Addhoc

First assertion: Original Research

The table in the criticism section of the article created by SpinyNorman constitutes original research.[43]

Second assertion: Repetition of Criticism

This sentence "Still others said "Squeeze the throttle too hard, though, and all hell would break loose. It would snap into oversteer, and only lightning-quick reactions could save you from an excursion into the undergrowth" by SpinyNorman represents unnecessary repetition.[44]

Third assertion: Use of secondary sources

SpinyNorman has mostly used secondary, not primary sources in accordance with policy.[45]

Fourth assertion: Inclusion of criticism

SpinyNorman has consistently argued that articles should include criticism and not be written from a sympathetic viewpoint, again in accordance with policy.[46]

Fifth assertion: Cooperation with other editors

SpinyNorman has cooperated with other editors on the talk page.[47]

Sixth assertion: Willingness to compromise

SpinyNorman has allowed for material that he introduced to be removed by other editors following discussion.[48]

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be JonGwynne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.87.210.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). JonGwynne hasn't edited since June 2005, so a check user won't help. I've therefore written up some of the editing similiarities below.

Previous Arbcom cases

• JonGwynne has been banned and placed on parole following two previous ArbCom cases: (1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne closed on March 6, 2005, placing him on personal attack parole for three months, and 1RR on articles related to global warming; (2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute closed on June 26, 2005, banning him from Wikipedia for three months, and from editing articles related to climate change for six months. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne.

Interests/traits

• JonGwynn/SpinyNorman interests/traits: they both like fast cars; dislike Honda S2000; oppose theories about global warming, and oppose environmentalism in general; somewhat anti-science; revert a lot and engage in system gaming to get round 3RR; stubborn; uncivil.

3RR blocks

• JonGwynne: Eight 3RR blocks in just over three months. [49]
• SpinyNorman: Five Six 3RR blocks in under four months; he continues to violate 3RR even as this case is ongoing. [50]

Timeline

• JonGwynne: first edit Aug 30, 2004; last edit Jun 26, 2005 (banned for three months).
• 24.87.210.3: first edit Mar 21, 2005; more or less stopped using it on Dec 3 (apart from two edits Dec 19 and Jan 29).
• SpinyNorman: first edit Dec 3, 2005 to the present.

Indication that 24.87.210.3 is JonGwynne

• Apr 18, 2005: JonGwynne removed from the intro of Kyoto Protocol that it's "intended as a first step." [51]
• Apr 18, 2005: Didn't remove it, but qualified it. [52]
• Apr 20, 2005: Removed that it's a first step. [53]
• Apr 20, 2005: Didn't remove it, but qualified it. [54]
• Apr 24, 2005: Removed that it's a first step. [55]
• Apr 27, 2005: Removed that it's a first step. [56]
• May 27, 2005: Didn't remove it but qualified it. [57]]
• Sep 24, 2005: 24.87.210.3. Didn't remove it but added that it may be ineffective. [58]
• Sep 25, 2005: William M. Connolley reverted 24.87.210.3 with the edit summary "rv edits by banned user JonGwynne ..." [59]
• Nov 10, 2005: Pc13 left a note on User talk:24.87.210.3 saying: "JonGwynne, please stop adding biased nonsense to the List of automotive superlatives." [60]

Indication that 24.87.210.3 is SpinyNorman

• Dec 3, 2005 at 17:06: 24.87.210.3 started a thread on User talk:BorgHunter.
• Dec 3, 2005 at 17:13: SpinyNorman continued the thread with his first post as SpinyNorman, answering as though he was the same person. [61]

Examples of articles in common

Honda S2000

• JonGwynne — 14 edits.
• 24.87.210.3 — 3 edits.
• SpinyNorman — 43 edits.

• Jan 11, 2005: JonGwynne created the criticism section. [62]
• Jan 23, 2005: JonGwynne reverted to retain the criticism section. [63]
• Mar 24, 2005: 24.87.210.3 added to the criticism section. [64]
• May 19, 2006: SpinyNorman reverted to retain the criticism section. [65] [66]
• Aug 20, 2006: ditto [67]
• Aug 24, 2006: ditto [68]
• Aug 25, 2006: ditto [69]

Consensus science

• JonGwynne — 47 edits.
• SpinyNorman — 12 edits.

• Now deleted; was created in Jan 2005 by JonGwynne as a complement to his attempt to undermine theories about global warming. Two AfDs were vigorously opposed by JonGwynne (in Jan 2005) [70] and SpinyNorman (in Aug 2006). [71]

Folke Bernadotte

• JonGwynne — 2 edits.
• SpinyNorman — 12 edits.

• Oct 7, 2004: JonGwynne changed that Bernadotte was assassinated by a Zionist "extremist group" to Zionist "terrorist group." [72]
• Aug 29, 2006: SpinyNorman changed that he was assassinated by a Jewish "paramilitary organization " to Jewish "terrorist group." [73]
• Sep 3, 2006: SpinyNorman changed Jewish "militant group" to "terrorist group." [74]
• Sep 3, 2006: SpinyNorman changed Jewish "underground group" to "terrorist group." [75]
• Sep 5, 2006: ditto [76]
• Sep 5, 2006: ditto [77]
• Sep 5, 2006: ditto [78]

Partial-birth abortion

• JonGwynne — 31 edits.
• 24.87.210.3 — 2 edits.
• SpinyNorman — 4 edits.

• May 16, 2005: JonGwynne rewrote the intro to say: "Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term sometimes used to refer to "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X"). The term is not a medical one but is primarily used in public, political and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States." [79]
• Dec 22, 2005: SpinyNorman's first edit to the article reverted to JonGwynne's version of the intro. [80]

Common interests:

Fast cars

• JonGwynne: Honda S2000, Honda NSX, TVR, TVR Tuscan, TVR Speed Six engine, TVR Speed Twelve engine, Bugatti EB110, Lamborghini Miura, Lamborghini Diablo, Lamborghini V12, Lamborghini Murciélago, Lamborghini V8, Lamborghini V10, Category:Lamborghini vehicles, Anti-lock braking system, List of supercars, List of automotive superlatives, Gull-wing door, Jaguar XJ220, Jaguar C-Type, Jaguar D-type, Jaguar E-type, Template:Jaguar, W engine, V18 engine, V16 engine, Sports car, Talk:Chevrolet Corvette, Pushrod engine, Noble (car), Ford Duratec engine, Overhead camshaft, Powertec RPA, Audi Quattro, Multi-valve, Dodge Viper, Unsafe at Any Speed

• SpinyNorman: Honda S2000, TVR, TVR Speed Six engine, TVR Speed Twelve engine, Bugatti Veyron, Bugatti, Bugatti EB110, Lamborghini Miura, Lamborghini Diablo, Lamborghini V12, Lamborghini Murciélago, Lamborghini Gallardo, Lamborghini V12, Anti-lock braking system, Left-foot braking, List of supercars, List of fastest cars by acceleration, Gull-wing door, W18 engine, Ferrari FXX, Talk:Pulse detonation wave engine, Straight-6, Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, Ford GT90, Cerbera

• 24.87.210.3: Honda S2000, Honda NSX, TVR, Bugatti Veyron, Jaguar XJ220, Talk:List of supercars, List of automotive superlatives, Supercar, List of Ferrari Enzo owners, Rear-wheel drive, Lotus Esprit, Lotus Elise, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution

Environment

• JonGwynne: Kyoto Protocol, Consensus science, Global warming, Scientific consensus, Carbon dioxide, Global cooling, Greenhouse gas, Carbon dioxide, Temperature record of the past 1000 years, Medieval Warm Period, Trace gas, Little Ice Age, The Skeptical Environmentalist

• SpinyNorman: Kyoto Protocol, Consensus science, Mitigation of global warming, Environmentalist, Eco-terrorism, Green Scare

• 24.87.210.3: Kyoto Protocol, Greenhouse gas

Two IPs

There's one piece of evidence against SpinyNorman being JonGwynne:

• Aug 30, 2004 at 10:56: 62.252.192.6 started a thread on Talk:List of supercars, but didn't sign it. [81].
• August 30, 2004 at 11:06: JonGwynne's first edit was to sign the post. [82]

• 62.252.192.6 resolves to the UK, but the other IP apparently used by SpinyNorman, 24.87.210.3, resolves to Canada. However, the other evidence strongly indicates that Spiny/Jon/24.87.210.3 are the same person, so I'm assuming Spiny traveled to the UK at some point. Even though posting from England, 62.252.192.6 used the expression "that's my $.02" [83] There's no other editing from 62.252.192.6 that suggests a connection to the Jon/Spiny accounts.

Evidence presented by Humus sapiens

On September 13-14 SpinyNorman (talk · contribs) engaged in a series of revert wars in Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In spite of a warning [84], he chose to violate WP:3RR with another (and more POV) revert. Even given an ample chance to self-revert [85], he mocked it by denying that his edit [86] constituted a revert. He knows that it is false (see for example his previous day's edit [87]). In result, he was blocked by another admin for a week. Responded with obscenities and demands for apologies: [88]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)