Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master

I originally posted similar questions on jdforrester's talk page but perhaps he didn't notice. Anyway, I have some arbitration scope clarification questions. Nectarflowed seems to be implying this arbitration case is specific to just "talk page events" and only to the month of June when he posted a synopsis of a discussion with jdforrest (scroll down) here. It is my understanding the scope of this arbitration case is much larger, including the race and intelligence article, other related articles, and various talk pages and multiple users' statements including myself. Can someone clarify? Nectarflowed proposed arbitration on the race and intelligence article's talk page and also made the comment that "maybe this arbitration will resolve the race and intelligence dispute" so I don't see how the article itself is not involved in the dispute. [1] Also, is this arbitration case misleadingly titled if the scope is not just about me? zen master T 01:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is justice taking so long?

No one has answered my question as to whether the race and intelligence article itself is subject to this arbitration? I'd be interested in hearing what user Jokestress thinks about that article's method of presentation as I've effectively embargoed myself from editing that article as she seemed to be doing as good a job as may be possible. Where are the proposed remedies for fixing the extremely biasing method of presentation that the race and intelligence article uses and exposing its subtle psychologically language propaganda methods? How can a proposed one week block possibly fit the crime if I was only ever subject to a proposed 2 hour block when the issue first happened as far as alleged name calling is concerned?

I formerly request timely justice as this process has taken way too long and has seemingly gone from slow to stop recently. Why haven't other admins commented on this arbitration case? What is going on? zen master T 19:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad luck for Zen-master

I have some experiences with Zen-master on the "Conspiracy theory" page, and, I'm sorry to say, indeed he seems to have very personal opinions of which he is so strongly convinced that he tends to push them and debate about them without end. That can be tiring! Some measures may sometimes be necessary to keep him in control if he can't control himself.

OTOH, despite my experience-induced bias concerning Zen-master, I just had a look at the article that was at the heart of his problems, "Race and Intelligence", and I found the following facts:

1. It was criticized as "lacking" in peer review 2. It was criticized as being biased in "featured article" review 3. From a link here from Zen-master I obtained notable information about possible "observer bias" behind the data as used in The Bell Curve, which he had presented in a discussion but which was lacking in the article; some vague statements about this subject do appear, but it's not even mentioned that it (if I read it well) particularly applies to the most striking feature of the article, the Bell curve.

I now added that link to the article's reference as well as to the Talk page (and to my own copy, thanks Zen-master!). This should be seen in the light of the recent cigarette lobby scandal in Switzerland, where possibly misleading pro-smoking reports were published (and cited) that were paid by the cigarette industry.

Thus it appears that Zenmaster had the bad luck to be outnumbered in discussions about his concerns in which he brought forward pertinent material that was insufficiently taken into account by his co-editors. Possibly this was incidental, I only probed a few pages. Otherwise, he did not have to assume good faith.

Note: we are now drafting a NPOV policy clarification about such bias problems, in Wikipedia:Information suppression.

Harald88 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving deleted RfA discussion here

Note: Fred Bauder deleted the following section from the WP:RFA page with the checkin comment "maybe not responded to but old" [2]

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: these questions were never responded to... zen master T 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the focus remains on race and intelligence. I think you were trying to do too much in your reframing of that subject in that you are ascribing broad motives to all the participants in a factual issue. I haven't looked at it for a while but I don't remember it as being high biased or a notable and nefarious example. It is simply a more or less NPOV report of the controversy. Fred Bauder 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view reports don't utilize suggestive language and a presumption inducing dichotomy to present a subject. zen master T 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master

The year-long ban on Zen-master (talk · contribs) has recently expired. IIRC, one of the actions that resulted in his ban was his perennial harping (and creating multiple Policy Proposals) against using the term "conspiracy theory" in articles. It took him less than a week to drop back into his old behavior, as evidenced on this "new" proposal (now userfied), canvassing, spamming edit warring, and pointless debate. Frankly I find it hard to find any edits in his contribs log that do not relate to his POV pushing. I suggest that his presence is not only a net negative, but an overall negative to the project. >Radiant< 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: The prior decision involving this user is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some users are trying to ban me because of what I discuss on discussion pages, is that really a bannable offense? Resubmitting a proposal after 2 years have elapsed is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policies as far as I know. Also note some editors are trying to ban me because I discovered that the race and intelligence article utilizes a racism inducing method of presentation, see the scientific racism article. If you think the phrase "conspriacy theory" is neutral feel free to disagree with me, but please don't try to ban me just because I don't think it's neutral. zen master T 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the one-year ban was converted into an indefinite block on August 27, 2006 by user:Samuel Blanning on account of "evasion via sockpuppetry indicates no inclination to serve ban." See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zen-master. On August 8, 2007 user:Zscout370 unblocked the account, "giving him another chance". In a related action, this user's account on Wiktionary was blocked due to POV pushing in the "conspiracy theory" entry.[3] Among other things he'd been using the Wiktionary definition, that he'd written, to support his assertions about its use on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was blocked on wiktionary allegedly for my behavior on Wikipedia according to the admin that blocked me on Wiktionary, Connel MacKenzie, who has yet to list and explain how any wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses. I'd also like someone to explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially me recent edits, could be considered blockable offenses? Why aren't any users complaining about me linking to any of my edits? Answer: because none violate policy. Just because a coordinated group of users don't like my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean you should let them block me over it. zen master T 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you were blocked for sending a rude email to Colin (a very senior admin over there)Blueboar 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, my email to his wiktionary account had the same tone as my post to his Wikipedia discussion page here. And I only emailed him after he had already blocked me indefinitely. I've pasted below my posts to his Wikipedia discussion page:

Why did you block my Wiktionary account?

Hello Connel MacKenzie, please list and explain here what wiktionary edits for "Hollow are the Ori" are in any way blockable offenses? Why did you make the block indefinite?

If there are any other wiktionary.com admins reading this page please look into this case. zen master T 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spreading falsehoods that my email to you regarding your unjustified block of my wiktionary account had a bad tone. The tone of my email to you was the same as my tone is here. I repeat my request for you to list and explain here how any of my wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses? zen master T 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't any of the editors complaining against me listing any recent Wikipedia edits of mine that could be considered blockable offenses? Why is there a group of coordinated users conspiring against me and my proposals? I repeat my request for someone to list and explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially recent ones, are blockable offenses? Recently all I've been doing is pretty much discussion on discussion pages, how is that a blockable offense? zen master T 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's original message links to specific problems with your edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits list anything that violates policy, normal wikipedia edits. And please link to specific edits rather than just article history. And how is debate on a proposal page a blockable offense? It's a very sad state of affairs if someone can be blocked for alleging that a phrase used in article titles isn't neutral. Feel free to disagree with me but don't block me because we disagree. zen master T 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia is a legitimate cause for a block. Your edit warring at 9/11 Truth Movement was not productive, and may have violated WP:3RR, or at least come very close to doing so. You've been blocked ten times for 3RR violations previously. You edit-warred before your ban and you don't seem to have changed your behavior. Spamming and canvassing are also disruptive. Pointless debate is not productive either. Can you explain why you asked for your block to be overturned and what productive edits you've made since your return? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to try to make a case for why I should be blocked, not the other way around. zen master T 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Zen-master's behavior is the same as it was before his ban: Edit-warring, and trying to ban the phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles. Zscout370 unblocked to give him another chance, and Zen-master has chosen not to take it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wrongfully banned the first time around and it looks like I will be wrongfully banned again. I followed wikipedia policy in making my proposal that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral enough for use in article titles, it's a very sad state of affairs if making an unpopular proposal can get someone banned. zen master T 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about agreeing to stay away from any page (in any namespace) dealing with conspiracy theories? I don't think a complete ban would be necessary if these pages were voluntarily avoided. Chaz ^Beckett 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about discussion pages? I actually prefer to have the entire arbitration committee fully review this case and re-open the original case since it was and is wrong. zen master T 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, discussion pages seem to be a big part of the problem. I personally don't believe you're going to accomplish much by attempting to re-open the case, but it's your choice on how to proceed. Chaz ^Beckett 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So someone can be banned for discussion on discussion pages? This is ludicrous. The principle of neutral presentation should prevent the use of language such as "conspiracy theory" that is ambiguous, discrediting and deceiving at a subtle unconscious level. No one has made a case as to how any specific recent edits of mine are blockable offenses. zen master T 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• If I may cite Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." >Radiant< 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there is a social standard against discussion on discussion pages? That is ridiculous. Just because you "strongly disagree" with my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean that's a blockable offense. zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[4] was my reasoning for unblocking the account. Sorry if I cannot provide more details, since I don't keep IRC logs. Whatever actions the ArbCom or other decisions make, I will not oppose them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When is the full arbitration committee going to start reviewing this case and re-open the original arbitration case? zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely (re)blocked Zen-master. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And honestly, unless he promises to reform, I don't see any reason to overturn that at any point in the future. Some users (unfortunately) are lost causes. I think he is one of them. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)