From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 SpinyNorman is restricted from editing Honda S2000 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Template 4.1.2 Neutral point of view 4.1.3 Ban for disruption 4.1.4 Civility 4.1.5 Matter at issue 4.1.6 Template 4.1.7 Template 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Template 4.2.2 Locus of dispute 4.2.3 Criticism section advocated by SpinyNorman 4.2.4 Sockpuppeting 4.2.5 Tendentious editing by SpinyNorman 4.2.6 Edit warring by SpinyNorman 4.2.7 Incivility by SpinyNorman 4.2.8 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Template 4.3.2 SpinyNorman placed on probation 4.3.3 SpinyNorman placed on personal attack parole 4.3.4 SpinyNorman placed on revert parole 4.3.5 SpinyNorman is placed on general probation 4.3.6 SpinyNorman to edit with one account 4.3.7 Template 4.3.8 Template 4.3.9 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Enforcement by block 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] SpinyNorman is restricted from editing Honda S2000

1) User:SpinyNorman is banned from editing Honda S2000 during the arbitration case.

2) Alternatively Honda S2000 be temporarily locked with a neutral Criticism section during the Arbitration case. (alternative added by Zunaid 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Comment by Arbitrators:

His criticism section is fine. In that particular instance he was on the side of the angels. But serious problems with tendentious editing. Fred Bauder 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My view (echoed by the majority of editors) is that a concisely summarised Criticism section is more balanced and neutral than what is currently in place. For the duration of the arbitration case at least, this more balanced view should be reflected in the article. This can be achieved in two ways: 1) restoring a previous version of the article and locking it for the duration of the case, or 2) temporarily banning SpinyNorman from the article (to prevent a revert war) in order to allow the remaining editors to effect a rewrite. Zunaid 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Offered by User:Zunaid on FloNight's talk page. [1] FloNight 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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. Fred Bauder 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Matter at issue

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Locus of dispute

1) The nominal focus of this dispute is Honda_S2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which contains a criticism section which is maintained in its more elaborate iteration by SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (MesaBoogie (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 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 Honda_S2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and other disputed articles such as Jews_for_Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Criticism section advocated by SpinyNorman

2) The criticism section advocated by SpinyNorman does not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are sufficient verifiable reliable sources to support its content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disagree. That the information in the Criticism section is verifiably factual does not vindicate its inclusion. The particular facts chosen to be presented, and the particular negative spin given to these facts in order to represent them as criticism (e.g. comparison with bigger-engined or more expensive vehicles) represents a strong non-neutral POV, and represents only one point of view out of the entire corpus of car reviews available. The extended Criticism section is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight (and possibly at a stretch WP:NOR as well for inferring negative spin from cold hard facts). Zunaid 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zunaid. Criticism is verifiable - every vehicle has critics - but the inclusion of only carefully chosen negative comments out of a corpus of generally positive reviews represents a textbook case of Undue weight. — AKADriver ☎ 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The only textbook case involved here is the idea that a significant viewpoint can be suppressed by consensus. Fred Bauder 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was originally to shorten the section and word it in a way that emphasizes that the criticism is opinion, which SpinyNorman's version did not adequately do. I disagreed with this at first, preferring no criticism at all + or -, and some anon editors have blanked the section; but everyone else involved except SpinyNorman was happy with a version that still acknowledged criticism without giving it half the article. I recognize the ArbCom is not in the automotive business, but to put it in perspective, this is not criticism on par with famous scandals such as Unsafe At Any Speed. It's just pure opinion, and not majority opinion. — AKADriver ☎ 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not pure opinion; it is an objective description of a car that because it is designed in a certain way, has certain characteristics. Once in a great while my MPV gets up to 3000 rpm; a car that ordinarily runs at 6000 rpm is a nightmare. Fred Bauder 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of like riding a Huskavarna chainsaw. Fred Bauder 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it doesn't - SpinyNorman's table showed something like 4000rpm at 75mph. Second, I thoroughly enjoy the zingy nature of my own sports car (not an S2000). I bought a car with a manual transmission so I could take advantage of its 7000+ rpm redline. It's not a (necessarily) negative trait for a sports car, and some of the reviews quoted by SpinyNorman were actually praising the car for the things he cast as negative criticism. — AKADriver ☎ 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess someone reading the criticism section could decide that that is the car for them. Fred Bauder 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is one of the problems. Are we writing an encyclopedia article or a car review? Just to re-iterate the type of negative spin I was talking about, you speak about "objective description". Can you please point out where this has been used in the article? For example, why is the high revving nature of the car (an "objective description") cast as a criticism? Zunaid 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support Some folks love the S2000, but the car revs high at moderate speeds, lacks torque, and has steering issues, all well described. It isn't a horrible car and these issues might not bother everyone, but the criticisms are legitimate (save perhaps the "endure" phrasing). We wouldn't want a criticism section being more than half an article, but S2000 doesn't seem to be getting there. Justforasecond 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section before SpinyNorman reverted it back to his original version (October 5, 2006) was great, but now it is full of his POV, e.g. occupants are FORCED to endure etc. etc. This is clearly a POV term and needs to be edited. Moreover, shouldn't SpinyNorman be banned from editing the Honda S2000 articles until this case is over? PS Why are no other arbitrators commenting on this case? Jsw663 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppeting

3) SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has created (MesaBoogie (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) which he uses to back up his positions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral. Looks like this is probably Spiny, but the number of edits are insignificant. Justforasecond 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing by SpinyNorman

4) SpinyNorman has engaged in tendentious editing of Jews for Jesus. His typical edit involves characterizing the group as "Jewish" as contrasted to "Christian". Other examples: [2] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence#Spiny_Norman_has_edited_tendentiously.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Jews for Jesus self-identifies as Jewish. Wiki precedent is to allow individuals and groups to self-identify with religions. This is not tenditious editing. Justforasecond 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring by SpinyNorman

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose. May be true but evidence needs to be supplied beyond block log. The block log has no diffs and typically 3RRs are not examined for legitimacy. The first block says 09:45, 22 May 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) blocked "SpinyNorman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated 3RR). Strikes me as odd -- he's been repeatedly violating 3RR but no previous blocks? Furthermore one "Slim Virgin" admits to engaging in "Spiny Warring". So this edit warring finding of fact should probably extend to her (and others) Justforasecond 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree with Justforasecond about SV, who has put up with quite a lot from Spiny. Also, Spiny doesn't spend enough time building consensus. Addhoc 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility by SpinyNorman

6) SpinyNorman has engaged in incivility bordering on personal attack [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence#First_assertion:_Personal_Attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Most of these are not "uncivil bordering on personal attack". In one of the above, he says [8] he says simply what are you talking about?.

Some others are uncivil, but it's not horrible stuff. Things like Actually, the measurements are of CO2 and either deuterium or oxygen-18. The relationship of the isotopes measured is not, in fact, direct. Are you still going to argue that it isn't proxy data? Or are you going to argue that researchers have found a way to send equipment back in time to take direct measurements? And the fact remains that there is no correlation, even in the proxy-derived record, of a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature.

This is not a personal attack. I will agree that calling others The attempts of a handful of POV-pushers to censor legitimate criticism of the film is uncivil, but editors and admins call others POV-pusher regularly. Google for "pov push wikipedia" and find a list of editors that could be blocked for incivility. Justforasecond 03:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] SpinyNorman placed on probation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems that this, if any, would be the time to ban him from an article. Giving others carte blanche to do so in the future is passing the buck. If he has disrupted s2000, ban him from that article now. But, from what I've read about disruption, his edits to s2000 don't even come close. He seems despised by a few but the bits and pieces I've read seem to be truthful, balanced appraisals of the car, and his willingness to work with others is obvious in the MPH/RPM table instance. Justforasecond 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As there is no "personal attack" finding of fact (just incivility bordering on personal attack) this strikes me as unnecessary. Justforasecond 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Justforasecond, consider it slightly unusual to place someone on NPA parole, when they have been in contravention of WP:CIVIL and nearly, but not quite been in contravention of WP:NPA. Addhoc 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpinyNorman placed on revert parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Couple things --

1. does this parole ever end?
2. i have zero doubts that if this rule were in place, wikistalkers would revert every spiny edit in short order, making his editing here impossible. perhaps we could make it one revert per article per day, and apply it to all parties involved (slim virgin, joshua z, humus sapiens, jayjg, etc). Justforasecond 05:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Justforasecond, WP:1RR would be a more appropriate remedy. Addhoc 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Far too strict with terms undefined. What constitutes disruption or an appropriate period? Can any old admin block him for a year the first time he says "boo"? Does this probation ever expire? Justforasecond 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpinyNorman to edit with one account

5) SpinyNorman is require to edit using only one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

How about one account per article? That would disallow sockpuppetry but also help him to make a new start without wikistalkers trailing him, should he desire. Justforasecond 05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree with Justforasecond, limiting Spiny to just a single account would be easier to manage. Addhoc 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: