Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)