User talk:Zen-master/archive2

Race and intelligence
Please stop adding totallydisputed to this article. If there is a dispute among editors, someone else should add it. I don't want to ban you from editing this article but I don't want to have a revert war over this, either. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The relevant provision in your probation is where it says that you may be banned if in the opinion of any administrator your editing is disruptive. I am an administrator and I say your editing is disruptive. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You are banned from editing Race and intelligence for two weeks. Do not edit the article during this time or I will have to block you. I would suggest you not edit the talk page either but that's up to you. I think you need some time off to cool your heels. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
You have violated the 3RR on Conspiracy theory. Please undo your last edit. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Calling those with whom you are editing "vandals" while insisting on your own good faith doesn't wash. -Willmcw 02:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Karmafist 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi; I urge you to stop characterizing those of us who disagree with you as duplicitous and POV bots; That whole coordinated-gang-of-POV-pushers motif just antagonizes people. Please refrain from personal attacks on the talk page, and especially in the edit summaries.

I have not always lived up to my own aspirations in that regard, so I understand it's difficult not to take the opportunity to get in a snarky shot. We all feel strongly about this, and we all want to produce a good page. Some tension is inevitable.

Further, I want to take this chance to tell you that I regret my remarks to you from 25 October, when you might have understood me to suggest you were "sophomoric and inane." I did not intend to apply that to you or your writing, but to the result of what I saw as an out-of-control process. I expressed myself badly, and I am sorry to have made what a reasonable man could take as a personal attack.

I have invited you before to join me in limiting yourself to one edit per day. I renew that invitation now. If that seems too restrictive, how about one edit to the introduction per day? Tom Harrison (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "The way 'conspiracy theory' discredits is it implies dubiousness through implied association (or through literal language recursive definition confusion) with the highly dubious 'conspiracy theory' narrative genre." This needs to be included and expanded upon in the article. --Peter McConaughey 03:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peter here. What's the use in limiting Zen_m's edits Tom, you got an agenda to push, and it's obvious so a soon as zen m tires with this issue you gonna re-edit this one, and all well and back to normal, right? [this last remark was apparently by 87.202.20.229]

Intro clarity improvement safekeeping
Note for future clarity and inclusion, for the intro of Conspiracy theory:


 * ''Literally, the phrase can refer to any actual theory or hypothesis that alleges a conspiracy or a group secretly working together.


 * The phrase "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous and pejorative when someone uses it, often subtly, to dismissively categorize an actual theory or conjecture, that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy, as an example of "conspiracy theory" fiction or rumor. It may be considered improper to dismissively categorize a theory or competing viewpoint as fiction or rumor as that may discourage a scientific and factual analysis. Last updated: 03:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I believe I wrote to you before about unfortunate wording that can be mistaken for personnal attacks. On the talk page you wrote:

"I think your version(s) are intentionally subtly unclear, incomplete, misleading, and undermine or dowplay the attempt to explain how the phrase's duplicitious discrediting works."

Perhaps you meant to say un-intentionally. I'd appreciate it if you would correct it; Otherwise people might think you were impunging my motivation. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Without accepting that there was a lack of clarity in the version I suggested we use, I assure you that any lack of clarity was inadvertent. I'll address your thoughts about the intro on the talk page.

I dispute Jayjg's block for "personal attacks"
For the record I dispute Jayjg's block of me for "personal attacks" (and he has yet to notify me on my talk page). Given the history of the Conspiracy theory article it is perfectly reasonable to interpret that a bot-like highly coordinated cabal of editors do everything in their power to defend or implement a certain POV. Why do Jayjg and his POV aligned friends always seem to show up to the same article at the same time? Why do Jayjg and his friends have exactly the same POV? They never seem to debate the core issues of any controversy on the talk page. zen master T 19:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for Jayjg or someone to explain their actions. Also, why does a coordinated group of editors try so relentlessly to implement the same (subtle propaganda?) POV on specific, politically sensitive, articles within wikipedia without ever debating in good faith on the talk page? zen master T 22:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's amazing a group of suspiciously coordinated admins can gang up on a minority view point without any repurcussions here on wikipedia. I am still waiting for various explanations. zen master T 04:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I invite the coordinated pro "conspiracy theory" editors to responded to my most recent talk page posts even though I am currently blocked from editing, hopefully a lively debate will spring up and the issues will resolve themselves with fresh editors (unlikely but one can dream). Oh wait, the coordinated editors don't actually care to debate the core of most any issue, and they may be propagandists or otherwise play games, oh I forgot, sorry, never mind. zen master T 05:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a debating society. Our only purpose is to write encyclopedia articles that summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. However, for what it's worth, this topic has already been debated at length. Insisting on continuous debate is disruptive. -Willmcw 00:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Just heard from Jayjg
I'll continue talking to him, and I think there's some promise in smoothing any miscommunications out, but in order to do so, I think you're probably going to have to do the following things...


 * 1) Extend an olive branch to Jayjg or anyone else you have a dispute with: You don't need to apologize or what have you, but saying "Even though we might disagree, I'll still respect you if you respect me" will go a long way.
 * 2) Don't try to be a robot: This is just my opinion, but I think 100% NPOV is impossible, even on Wikipedia, unless you basically are not a human being. Humans have desires and fears and all sorts of things that tint our perspectives on subjects. I try to aim for the 90-99% NPOV range, and don't always get there IMO, but the goal itself is a noble enough endeavor and is the heart of WP:NPOV. Then again, if you are actually a robot, I apologize for what I just said and I'll suggest you stay away from any magnets or electromagnetic pulses.
 * 3) Try to steer clear of any subject that might be discussed on the X-Files or a Sunday morning talk show: You don't have to if you don't want to, but from looking at this and the rfar, that seems to be where you're having the bulk of your problems. I disagree with all the baloney about Cabals and such, because a true Wikipedian must try to work with, respect and seek the opinions of other Wikipedians, in both the positive and negative. Next time you're in a case like you were at with conspiracy theory, ask others on the outside for advice and comments on what they think, and if a tag or an edit is put back and forth, instead of continuing with it, ask the person who disagrees with you why they do and try to figure out some middle ground -- the English Language is wonderful at doing this.
 * 4) Follow one of the most important rules i've found regarding others on Wikipedia: There are three types of people out there -- the ones that disagree with you, the ones that agree with you, and the ones that are indifferent to your opinion(the third being the vast majority). If you're nice to people, both directly and reputation-wise, those indifferent people are more likely to say "yeah sure, what you're saying sounds fine to me." karmafist 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok...
Do what you like, but that's my two cents in being able to fix things. From what it looks like though, this path you're on seems like it will breed more conflict. I'd also suggest looking at this page and then, you're on your own unless you ask for any more advice. I've learned my lesson and i'm not going to try to help out someone that doesn't seem to want to be helped. karmafist 01:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, i've been noticing the contradiction in regards to when policy step on each others toes lately, particularly with WP:IAR. I have an idea though, keep your eyes on the Village Pump in the next few days.

Extension of probation
It has been suggested by SlimVirgin that your probation be extended to include Conspiracy theory, see Requests_for_arbitration. I have suggested probation be extended to all articles and made indefinite. You may reply there. Fred Bauder 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
And if you don't mind, a bit of advice. I'd suggest you really, really try not to get too reiterative with your edits and 'in the moment' about your opinions - the Wikipedia will be here a long, long time - so if you find you're a lone voice, you need to respect that and find other, more constructive ways to ensure your contributions are useful and worthy of being retained in the Wikipedia. If your opinions don't 'stick', give it time and space and question your beliefs again.

Try and cool off a bit, because I've seen some really good work from you and you shouldn't minimize your own effectiveness by fighting the wrong battles until blood is drawn. It's a tough call, but I think it's the only way you can navigate your way to a place of calm, dispassionate Zen.

I'm wishing you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
Please join the discussion on the talk page if you want to add anything. It's a highly contensious article that we've been going round and round on since June. Adding a word here and there might not seem big, but for this article, even making an "a" into an "an" is big (and no I am not kidding). --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen, Don't mind Mike, that is just his inimitable way of greeting newcomers. It's his personal vision to see that everyone feels welcome and invited by the wiki-middle-management. Join the fun, and welcome to the party. Benjamin Gatti 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that your probation restrictions were recently extended to all articles. You are welcome to add to the talk page discussion, and to make constructive edits, but please don't edit war. At all. Ever. Other than that, good luck with the discussion, I've just protected the page because of the edit war. Dmcdevit·t 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were being disruptive. I was just reminding you, since I just protected the article in an edit war. You shouldn't edit war regardless of arbcom restrictions on you, by the way. I'm fairly certain that it was extended, three arbitrators commented, and all agreed, but I didn't bother to look it up. Of course, I we don't have to worry about that, right? Because there won't be any cause for concern, right? Dmcdevit·t 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you have really done anything wrong there. I just saw you joining the fray. Just thought you should know that there are a few admins watching there, and since you were editing just before it was protected, I was just reminding you to be careful. Good behavior is expected regardless arbitration results. Dmcdevit·t 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And no
There is no "pro-nuclear group engineering" the stuff on Price-Anderson Act. Quite the contrary. I'm a flaming liberal who has been involved in anti-nuclear protests for a long time. Simesa was a former nuclear technician who became a whistleblower and has become anti-nuclear. And Kate is a journalist and works for a publication (which shall remain nameless), which is known for being about as even handed as they come. And actually, #1 the article as a whole is more criticism than anything else (The criticism section is twice that of the other sections). And #2 katefan especially helped Ben early on with making the article more even handed. It started out very pro-nuclear. The whole issue has basically been that Ben wants to make the article more anti-nuclear and we think it's already very much anti-nuclear. What bothers me with this is that, as I said, I warned you that this was something you can't just blindly walk into. Think of it this way. We're 6 months into this and we're still debating the *introduction*. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zen, the arbcom case is against Ben, not you. You've been involved on P-A for just a few days and unless you are in the arbcom case to defend Ben against the charges put against him, you don't belong in the case. We're not arguing against Price-Anderson. this is about Ben's behavior and that's all its about. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights
You may be interested in User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

3RR violation on Conspiracy theory
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Conspiracy theory. Carbonite | Talk 15:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unjustified extension of block
Karmafist just extended my 24 hour 3RR block to 48 without a basis in policy, my probation is specific only to race and intelligence and related articles, not Conspiracy theory. Also, my last edit to Conspiracy theory was not a "complex revert" but an attempt at compromise and improved clarity. zen master T 17:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * When the cabal accuses someone of a "complex revert," it means that they are no longer able to assume good faith on that editor's behalf. This is always a death sentence at Wikipedia for the simple reason that the project can only operate within the assumption of good faith.
 * On occasion, an editor has been able to save his login by castrating himself before the cabal, but this disables his ability to be bold. Luckily, the cabal gives you a way to become a productive editor once again while making it appear that they always win. As long as your new login never makes obvious reference to Zen-master or his M.O., the cabal turns a blind eye to the IP number match.
 * Please note that this method is especially useful for previous members of the cabal who asked far too many questions. --Peter McConaughey 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's very helpful advice. The worst way to convince other users that you're acting in good faith would be to use sockpuppets to evade ArbCom rulings. Two pieces of information that might be of interest to you are WP:TINC and Essjay's law. Carbonite | Talk 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is another method of rebuilding an assumption of good faith, though I have yet to see an editor pull it off once a "vote of no confidence" has been proffered. --Peter McConaughey 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Him again? Andy Mabbett 12:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Peter, so, you are saying instead of working to remove an unjustified block and point out propaganda and racism inducing methods of presentation I should just create a sockpuppet account? I am afraid that isn't my style and is perhaps a poor course of action to take for a variety of separate reasons. Good faith has been abused by people that use disinformation tactics to get their way. zen master T 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read Essjay's law that Carbonite proffered. These are "laws" that Carbonite, Raul, and other members of the cabal actually believe and enforce. I am not recommending a course of action, but offer information in an attempt to enable more possibilities. I know your intentions to be honorable and your contributions to be more substantial than the entire cabal combined. For that reason, I give serious consideration to supporting any course of action you choose, but we should also be aware of the possibilities of success for each choice and follow the path that will do the most good. --Peter McConaughey 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Raul's laws are just observations that very often prove to be true. They're not policies, so I have no idea how someone could actually enforce them. It would be like trying to enforce the laws of thermodynamics. I also find it rather strange that you allege that good faith is not being assumed in the case of Zen-master and then immediately start accusing other editors of belonging to a cabal. Besides being a load of rubbish, it also isn't very helpful to anyone. Carbonite | Talk 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ZM, this was your seventh block for 3RR violations. Is there some part of the policy that you do not understand? It doesn't matter that you are fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way. Everybody has to respect the 3RR. -Willmcw 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to support what Willmcw said and offer an alternative to the 3RR. I have found that the 0RR works much better. When we assume good faith, we can almost always incorporate some of what the previous editor has contributed. Use of the 0RR leads to a much more friendly environment at Wikipedia helps build that assumption of good faith toward those who desist. --Peter McConaughey 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The zero-revert rule can only work in a truly straightfoward and organic environment that doesn't have one or more editors employing censorship and disinformation techniques, not to mention the possibility a fabricated sockpuppet account majority is always at the ready should the people behind the curtain decide they needed to use it for bullying. zen master T 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Using the Zero Revert Rule shows an assumption of good faith and competence. Reverting another person's work without trying to incorporate it, on the other hand, is a slap in the face. The user whose work is reverted is left with only three ways to explain the reversion: 1)he is trying to cause trouble; 2)he is incompetent; or 3)the person doing the reverting is heavy-handed. Out of those three options, which do you think an editor will pick? --Peter McConaughey 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What about the infinitely more common case that the edit made the article worse. You're assuming that any edit adds value to an article. In the case of Zen-master, there is agreement among a majority of editors that his edits (some, not all) are not improving the article. I think there's also a need to assume good faith on the part of the reverting editor. Assuming bad faith and making accusations of cabals is unproductive. Carbonite | Talk 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that assumptions of bad faith are as damaging as assumptions of incompetence, but is there any other way for an editor to account for a reversion? Granted, sometimes the editor knows that they are not acting in good faith, but in every other instance we are creating an environment of conflict when we revert. --Peter McConaughey 19:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Peter above, I think you miss my point, if an editor, as a member of the majority (fabricated or real) is actively censoring information and comprehension then they are already acting in bad faith, so an assumption to the contrary would be incorrect and unwise. I interpret you all to be saying pay no attention to the people behind the curtain surrounding the Wikipedia.


 * Zenmaster, eventhough I was involved in some discussions, I did not see any "active censoring" of information. What particular information source do you mean, can you give an example? Harald88 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By censorship I mean a whole host of things from direct outright censorship to talk page game playing, apparently to flush out someone's complaint and criticism then cycle back to the cabal approved version now that they know how best to counter it. Note: on wikipedia it's all a matter of percent chance an obfuscation technique will succeed, not usually a situation of outright censorship, hiding things in plain sight and mischaracterizing the critical view to reduce its impact seems to be the best place and technique respectively. Adhib and Tom and maybe others have seemingly be using a direct form of censorship by playing up the "conspiracy theory" story type and using words evocative of the allegedly dubious genre and utilizing the excessive wikilinking technique for emphasis which has mostly eliminated any possible clear understanding of the ambiguity and need for disassociation surrounding the phrase. Willmcw, Slim and Jay's involvement in the article, yet lack of significant talk page discussion, is a noteworthy inconsistency, but I won't comment on them further. Though, overall some progress has been made but through an increasingly inorganic process, or I am increasely aware of it and how in bad faith it was apparently designed. zen master T 23:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Carbonite, the rules of wikipedia should be applied equally to an individual editor as to a fabricated or bullying majority. The wiki concept of collaborative editing is fundamentally decentralized, locally oriented and peer to peer, not hierarchical. In my interpretation, the recent history of conspiracy theory, including the discussion page, has been nothing but a test of various techniques by the people behind the curtain surrounding Wikipedia, I play along only to work toward the elimination of propaganda and language confusion. zen master T 20:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the cabal is acting in bad faith regarding your case, but have you considered that their reasons for acting in bad faith might be grounded in a belief that you are acting in bad faith as well? I think its safe to assume that both the Cabal and you want what's best for Wikipedia, but that the two of you merely have different methods for achieving that goal. We don't have to look behind the curtain at Wikipedia because the curtain is transparent. Everyone can see that a cabal exists. Everyone can see what it is doing, and very few people say anything. There may be some terror associated with this, but by-in-large, everyone who edits here knows the score and consents to it. They know that Wikipedia isn't what it purports itself to be, and they know that cabal-bias negatively affects the content, but they also know that Wikipedia is a step in the right direction - that it's the best this planet has got in the genre of world-wide consensus and communal thought. --Peter McConaughey 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An in good faith "cabal" (group of people behind the curtain surrounding Wikipedia) would not utilize various bad faith techniques. What do you or the cabal consider bad faith about my Title Neutrality proposal or the original? Do you mean premature or incomplete? To the alleged good faith cabal what is the benefit of letting a racism inducing method of presentation inside race and intelligence remain as is? It seems there are competing cabals, some infinitely worse than others? And no, the curtain or cabal is not sufficiently transparent, and from my vantage point has tainted the free culture, and GFDL etc movements, but I can assume good faith for the future. Though, without a git like repository to hopefully and theoretically ensure the integrity of changes I remain vastly skeptical of any claim that everything can be seen and that censorship isn't taking place at a lower layer. zen master T 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the powers that be to find a policy justification for a 3RR block greater than 24 hours... zen master T 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Block Extention
Sorry about that, I forgot to let you know, figuring you'd have seen WP:AN/3RR. You can see it as a second offense in regards to that article or you can see it as a 3RR and a vio of the ruling on your rfar. In either case, 24 hours punishment apparently wasn't enough to make you stop creating disruption there. Remember what I said before. You can end future hassles if you want, but reverts are going to take you farther away from that. karmafist 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By what policy are you blocking me for greater than 24 hours? zen master T 21:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he's referring to the Laws of the Cabal, not the subterfuge known as "Wikipedia policy."
 * Something that is often lost in a society that believes in the rule of law, is that the only thing backing up the rule of law is the natural law of might makes right. When we have not the tools to ensure that rule of law is followed, it will not be followed. --Peter McConaughey 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All the more evidence the wiki concept is fundamentally more de-centralized and peer to peer than Wikipedia's hierarchical version, though, the cabal can keep their current hierarchy but organic alternatives should be allowed to flourish and curtains should be removed over time. To be a true wiki or not, that is the question. zen master T 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zen-master, don't act like you don't know what's going on. This is at least your eighth 3RR vio, and your third on this article. A 48-hour block is well warranted by now if you don't want to learn to work with others. Dmcdevit·t 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All blocks greater than 24 hours require arbcom approval, right? The highly coordinated majority has to have violated various policies, when will they be blocked? And to answer your question, I actually have a pretty good idea what is going on. zen master T 05:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. ArbCom has nothing to do with an ordinary admin use of discretion in blocking. Egregious violations often, rightly, get more than 24 hour blocks and have no place at arbcom. Also note that I didn't ask a question. This "coordinated majority" you speak of sounds an owful lot like consensus, so yes, edit warriors are punished rather than the consensus version. If it's NPOV you are worried about, RFC and mediation is the way to go, not edit warring. And because of your history of arbitration and previous blocks, I know that you know that's what you should do by now. Just stop the edit wars. Dmcdevit·t 09:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I meant I know what's going on as in Wikipedia overall. Quoting from WP:3RR "...sysops may block you for up to 24 hours", 48 is greater than 24, where is your policy justification again? True consensus means all viewpoints are represented, it does not mean "majority". It would be easy for me to say it takes two to edit war, but instead I will say it doesn't take that large of a group of editors to censor facts or obfuscate abstract comprehension of a subject. I've been down the RFC and even arbitration roads before, few if any random non POV aligned new editors rarely if ever show up to a controversial article. It seems as if certain editors rely on the fact most people don't spend much if any time seriously investigating an issue. Also, certain editors try very hard to portray censorship instead as a critical view editor being "disruptive" among many other disinformation techniques. zen master T 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You've been edit warring for months. You were edit warring. That's your justification for a 48 hour block. This is an encyclopedia. You seem to be under the impression that policy governs the encyclopedia, but that's wrong. The encyclopedia governs the policy. It's just a means to an end. Dmcdevit·t 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting to here a policy based justification for a 3RR block greater than 24 hours... zen master T 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've given you an encyclopedia-based one. That should be enough. Dmcdevit·t 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not actually blocked currently so I don't know what is going on. For posterity what was your encyclopedia-based rationale exactly? zen master T 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Read it. I'm not going to get into one of these endless debates with you like on the RFAr page. I've said all that needs to be said. Dmcdevit·t 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I notice you've edited Conspiracy theory while banned. I don't think you meant to ignore the ban; I think this is a just a result of your misunderstanding the difference between blocking and banning. I believe banning is just on the honor system. I suggest you undo the edit, or if you want I'll undo it so nobody can say, even technically, that you edited after knowing you wearn't supposed to. I'll hold off on doing anything until I hear from you. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Only the arbcom can impose blocks greater than 24 hours, I thought I was blocked for 48 but it turns out I am not, I appreciate Dmcdevit's advice but by what policy is his "banning" binding on me? Though, due to the controversy surrounding Conspiracy theory I decided to only add info, I did not remove or rearange the stuff that was already there. zen master T 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said before, you are just plain wrong about greater-than-24-hour blocks. Take a look at the block log once in a while and you'll see why. Dmcdevit·t 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a block under 3RR and disruption, not a ban. It wasn't even my block. And yes, there was a technical mistake so that it expired too early, but I fixed that. Despite the fact that he edited when he was meant to have been blocked, you should, of course, only revert if it merits a revert. Use your judgment, if it's a good edit, why would we want to hurt the encyclopedia by reverting it because of some procedural thing? Dmcdevit·t 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dmcedevit, you can not be considered a neutral admin in this case, please recuse yourself. There is still no basis in policy for having a 48 hour 3RR block. zen master T 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also note for posterity, Dmcedevit and karmafist seem to be perpetuating confusion, my probation (or arbitration case editing restrictions) are specific only to race and intelligence and related articles, not applicable to conspiracy theory (there was some talk of extending it to all articles, but no decisions were made). zen master T 22:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Further note for posterity, on Dec 14 2005 my edit restrictions probation was (unjustly) extended to all articles by the "arbitration" committe, but was not in effect prior to then. zen master T 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * :) Nice one there. Zen, neither Karmafist nor I ever cited probation as the reason for a block (probation is for article bans anyway). This pattern of edit warring was precisely the it was extended, too. Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen - you can paste here, and I'll move it to the arbitration page for now. (if you like) Benjamin Gatti


 * I don't know what I can offer except as co-pilot, I agree the other side's outright censorship or obfuscation of the critical view and other citations in Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is not a run of the mill "content dispute". It seems they are trying to portray the issue soley as "disruptive" behavior, we should try to counter that by focusing on the various policy violations and censorhip without getting into content directly (though we may have to). We should also maybe try to retitle the arbcom case to something more neutral instead of allowing them to portray it as all about your behavior (the same thing happened to me in my race and intelligence arbcom case). Why were some members of the arbcom seemingly so adamant that the case should be titled with your username, instead of the article's title, that seems rather prejudicial and even worthy of recusal to me? What would you like me to look into? zen master T 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should get it retitled. There are no prior mediations or RfC with my name on them, so it is premature to pursue an arbcom case under that flag. (Support my motion for same?) Benjamin Gatti 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I support that motion. zen master T 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The motion Benjamin Gatti


 * Feel free to add my name to the motion, I am currently blocked from editing for like 20 more hours. Though, we may have to appeal to other arbcom members that didn't accept the case, two of the four on the case specifically requested your name be the title (I dare say that is grounds for recusal). zen master T 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I would appeal it to the WP:Supreme arbcom. --Peter McConaughey 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case modified
The Arbitration case involving you, Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, has been modified by the Committee after a request to do so, extending the probation from articles relating to race and intelligence to all articles.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * weak --Peter McConaughey 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master Fred Bauder 18:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unjust. zen master T 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Alert!
The list of researchers is now being AFDed. See Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I'm counter-proposing that it be kept and moved to its own page. Blackcats 23:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actions on CT
You've resumed edit warring. The thing is, Zen, you are not violating 3RR. This is true. But it's still edit warring. You are still reverting other people's changes without discussion on the talk pages. It's the same behavior you've been showing for months and months. It's why the arbcom case was brought on you and it's why the probation was extended. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I just explained on the WP:ANI page I have been following the WP:0RR which has taught me to include other editors content in addition to my own. If I inadvertantly removed something then let's restore it, if there is a disagreement over NPOV then let's go with a superset introduction while we work out a bipartite version on the talk page, but I would hope other editors would give the same benefit of doubt that all non-vandalism edits add value to wikipedia. zen master T 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering that your edits on Conspiracy theory have in the past week been reverted by a number of different users, including Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Harald88 and Carbonite, and on the talk page several people, including Cberlet and Sean Black, state disagreement with your edits, I must conclude that your edits run against consensus, and that your repeatedly reverting to the version you prefer is disruptive. Thus, you are hereby banned from Conspiracy theory until January 1st. You are welcomed to propose any changes to the article on its talk page, and seek consensus from there. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you need my help...
You seem to be under attack by several vandalministrators-namely Dmcdevit and Karmafist. If either of these users give any crap feel free to notify me. I'd be happy to help out. freestylefrappe 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
Your recent edits  to Race and intelligence may become disruptive if you continune to make bald reversions. Please discuss edits with other editors on the talk page of the article before making serious changes, especially when you have been reverted in the past. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this content dispute and I will not comment on it. Your method of editing is at question as has been explained to you many times over. Do not, without discussion and agreement with other editors, reapply content changes that were reverted. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
In spite of our disagreements, I want to wish you a safe and happy holiday. Best regards, Tom Harrison (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Here's wishing one a centered Solstice Benjamin Gatti

Why
Is everything a conspiracy with you? I don't get it. There is no cabal running Wikipedia. There are not bots who are programmed to debate with you. I, Simesa and katefan are exactly what we say we are. Read up on assuming good faith. At times, you seem to assume that others have bad intentions. To you, I'm not trying to build a NPOV encyclopedia. I'm using nuclear talking points to make an article subtly pro nuclear. And you apparently decided this before I even had made one edit to P-A. I don't get it. It makes no sense to me. If you are that negative about other people's intentions, why are you here? No one is out to get you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can give the benefit of the doubt but I can't ignore extremely biased and one sided articles nor ignore the small but highly coordinated handful of editors that perpetuate them. On wikipedia it is better to judge editors by their actions rather than what they claim are their motivations. You say you aren't pro nuclear but your portrayal of user Benjamin Gatti as somehow "disruptive" is at best excessive. zen master T 09:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I take that as an extreme insult. You know very little about me. And what I have told you, you don't believe me anyway. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

re removed link in 2004 election controversy article
it was a mistake. i scooped up the line accidentally when selecting the other text. Anastrophe 00:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal alert!
I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. Thank you. Blackcats 21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Two week ban from editing User Bill of Rights
For disruptive edits (multiple removals of the rejected tag), you are banned from editing User Bill of Rights until 13 January 2006. You may still edit the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record - the editor who added the "rejected" tag - did so while ejaculating "BE BOLD". I think it is clear the label was known to be a stretch, and not well supported, it is also clear that the number one reason cited for sanctioning Zen is that others have done so. As a chickenherd in my youth, I believe I can recognize the pecking instinct when I see it. Benjamin Gatti 17:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cold Fusion RfC
Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that  ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me  ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time.

ObsidianOrder 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your input
I saw that you support the wikipedia policy against information suppression. Currently there is a VfD and RfC on an article of a scientific researcher that has made large and verifiable contributions to science and society, at Edward Smith (psychologist). I have verified the findings myself via observation and experimentation, so the findings are clearly real. However, Edward Smith has not been published in any major scientific journal, it is uncertain if he has gone through the official educational system, and even his identity is uncertain. Some people believe that any such subtle-but-important people that lack those social prerequisites can not make major contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, and that any of their contributions are non-verifiable, period, despite methods of verification being outlined by the discoverer. I am curious what your stance on this matter is. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RfAr notice/ your violations of the civility policy
Due to your use of crude uncivil discreditting behavior and libel, in violation of the policy Civility, and having done so after I asked you not to, I have created an RfAr for you. IrreversibleKnowledge 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

X and Intelligence
Hi,

I've been working. Please give me a hand by giving me any biblio you may have on nutrition and intelligence, preferably books and journal articles.

Please also help with a list of other factors influencing intelligence, e.g., prenatal influences, infant environment, mercury poisoning and other toxic environmental factors...

Thanks.

P0M 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Neutrality
Hey, thanks for the heads up! :) TitaniumDreads 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read through all the details so as to understand why the discussion of "conspiracy theory" was deleted so soon. I don't approve of the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in most contexts, so whenever members of the community are allowed to comment on the subject, please send me another heads-up. Thanks! JamesMLane 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * James, the "conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal is below in my discussion page for safekeeping, though it would be great if an admin could restore the illegitimate speedy deleted proposal at its Title Neutrality location. Also, you seem a tad blase about members of community not being allowed to comment on the subject...? zen master T 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about blasé -- maybe jaded or cynical. In the earlier discussion, I expressed my opinion that "conspiracy theory" would usually be a POV term.  Unfortunately, many editors were quite willing to go along with this NPOV violation.  The trouble is that there are so many other violations to be addressed, with new ones popping up every day, that I just don't have time to take up the cudgels on this one right now.  I hope the community will revisit this issue at some point. JamesMLane 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The community eventually revisting and correcting an error is good, but how can that ever hope to happen in an environment where members of the community aren't even allowed to comment on the subject? zen master T 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not really clear on what the issue is here, just saw that there's some dicussion about the term conspiracy theory again. To me, it seems most of what they try to label as 'conspiracy theory,' as far as 9/11, is really just refuting the official 'conspiracy theory' and doesn't propose specific theories.
 * Just as an aside, last night on the 'History' (cover-up) Channel they had a show about the Kennedy's called the 'Curse of Power,' suggesting something magical to explain why the Kennedy's are all being killed off! It's a good analogy to the whole purpose of these labels - keep the issue at a repugnant distance so no one wants to be associated with it, much less ask any questions.  Stop the thought process.
 * Anyway, please keep me informed about votes on this and such. I also noticed there are some arbitration elections going on, and jayjg is on there.  I wasn't on here early enough to vote, however.Bov 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Title Neutrality. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

To contest this block, add the text  to this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also e-mail the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your e-mail. Izehar 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request
Adding a {rejected} header to a proposal that just began voting is a form of vandalism and the 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. Carbonite is up to his usual tricks trying to stifle and thwart policies he disagrees with. He or Cberlet claim the previous vote on version 1.0 of the proposal (6 months ago) was some how final yet now that voting has reopened on version 2.0 of the proposal voting suddenly is "evil", which is it? Wikipedia should not support any action that thwarts or discourages a serious analysis, discussion and comprehension of the Title Neutrality proposal or any issue. zen master T 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be something to think about... if you were participating in a serious discussion. You were just reverting a rejected template. Ashibaka tock Save our rectangular corners! 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, Carbonite added a {rejected} template to version 2.0 of a proposal that has not been rejected which is vandalism, reverting vandalism is not a violation of the 3RR. zen master T 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... feel free to believe that if you like. But you shouldn't be surprised if the Cabal blocks you for 3RR when you make 4 reverts to the contributions of more than one user, even if they are unhelpful contributions. Ashibaka tock Save our rectangular corners! 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is my point, errantly adding a {rejected} tag to a proposal that has under no criteria been rejected can't possibly be considered even a "contribution", it is vandalism. zen master T 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, errantly removing a rejected tag from a proposal that has under several criteria been rejected, as you have repeatedly done, is hard to consider constructive by any definition of the word. Neither are false allegations of vandalism. Or, for that matter, talk page spamming. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 2.0 of the proposal was never voted on (voting had just commenced) so how could it have been rejected? Voting for version 1.0 of the proposal (Conspiracy theory) closed over 6 months ago which is way more than enough time after which a proposal can be resubmitted. Plus, version 2.0 of the porposal is substantially updated and different (see below). A proponent of "conspiracy theory" in titles, Adhib, even edited the counter argument against my proposal 2 days ago at Title Neutrality so your thwarting and censorship of this issue is all the more obvious. Speedy deleting a proposal shows infinite bad faith and is yet another example of your and your buddies' censorship and gang bullying tactics. Adding a {rejected} template to a proposal that just began voting is a form of vandalism which Wikipedia policy specifically encourages editors to revert. zen master T 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Title Neutrality proposal is not trying to create new policy or precedent it is simple trying to affirm or work toward true consensus on "conspiracy theory" being pejorative and not appropriate in the title of multiple encyclopedia articles as interpreted from pre-existing Wikipedia neutral point of view and other policies. It seems some editors have used every duplicitous trick in the book to preserve the presumption inducing bias of the phrase "conspiracy theory" within Wikipedia. zen master T 07:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Title Neutrality proposal here for safekeeping
It seems Carbonite and his buddies have conspired to speedy delete the Title Neutrality proposal, standard censorship tactics from them. For now I will keep the "Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal here for safekeeping. zen master T 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal
When used to describe, label or categorize another subject the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article's title. Wikipedia historically defined the phrase "conspiracy theory" colloquially as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which is the antithesis of an encyclopedia and the scientific method. An encyclopedia should encourage rather than discourage a serious consideration of a subject so it can be understood even if false. Abstract understanding should come from fact and logic not from presumption inducing nor dismissive language. The "conspiracy theory" label is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore or rumor for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and logical analysis, or unencyclopedic dismissal.

Even if a specific theory alleges an actual conspiracy that is insufficient evidence that the subject of the theory should be associated, to even the slightest degree, with the allegedly false, allegedly eccentric, and allegedly paranoid type of fiction or rumor. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is both the name of a collection of allegedly fictional and eccentric stories involving aliens, UFOs, etc (often featured in popular media and entertainment) and coincidentally is also a possible label for any individual theory that literally alleges a conspiracy, very ambiguous and confusing. Note the Flat Earth article as a good example of a historical belief that has been disproven yet its article has a neutral title. Flat Earth is also a good analogy, if someone only has a limited amount of information it is reasonable to errantly believe or conclude the Earth is flat. Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates errant or incomplete belief.

Using "conspiracy theory" as a label in a title to dismiss violates various Wikipedia policies: Neutral point of view, undue weight, simple and direct language. Also, wikipedia articles are required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that a subject should be categorized within the eccentric type of fiction, which is something that is impossible to do in a title, see Wikipedia's citation policy.

The "conspiracy theory" label should be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form. I propose we affirm that the phrase "conspiracy theory" violates various pre-existing Wikipedia presentation neutrality policies and rename any article that uses it to describe another subject (see list below). We should use Wikipedia's existing title and neutrality policies as a guide individually in each case when renaming. The words "conspiracy" and "theory" when not combined are unaffected by this proposal and may still be used in a title individually.

Proponents of "conspiracy theory" in titles argue that some subjects are "true conspiracy theories" or "objectively a conspiracy theory" or "literally a conspiracy theory" but how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple meanings? Is X a theory that alleges a conspiracy or an example of fiction, belief, folklore or rumor? To avoid ambiguity and potential bias, an encyclopedia should use simple language that states that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z", where Y and Z are the two meanings of X. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can instead just state things directly and clearly using Y or Z? The more unambiguous and neutral a subject is presented the more obvious any error becomes. Proponents of the phrase's usage generally emphasize the stigmatizing type of fiction as some sort of argument in favor of the phrase's usage, but how does that make the phrase neutral or unambiguous? Should dubiousness through association with a type of eccentric fiction ever be implied by an encyclopedia even for non mainstream or controversial theories or beliefs? Theories, theoretical speculation, folklore, belief, rumor and fiction should be disassociated from one another.

Proposed list of articles to be renamed
This list includes plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Wikipedia title policy as a guide when renaming.
 * 9/11 conspiracy theories
 * AIDS conspiracy theories
 * Nick Berg conspiracy theories
 * Black helicopter conspiracy theory
 * Bush family conspiracy theory
 * UFO conspiracy theory
 * Bible conspiracy theory
 * Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
 * Columbine conspiracy theories
 * SARS conspiracy theory
 * Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories
 * Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theory
 * Freemason conspiracy theories
 * 911 Commission Report and Saddam-al Qaeda Conspiracy Theory
 * Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings
 * NESARA conspiracy theory
 * (any others?)

Strategy
Hi Zen-master, I noticed that user:Radiant! had reverted your addition of title neutrality twice. I've restored it. I agree with your attempts to make the names of certain articles less pov but I think your strategy might be racking up foes, which in my opinion is ultimately detrimental to your goals. Someone once said that Tact is making a point without making an enemy. I really do appreciate all the work you've put into this. Especially that bullshit where radiant went around deleting the info from peoples talk pages. cheers, TitaniumDreads 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * TD, you might want to take your own advice on that, rather than yelling around accusing people. Just a thought. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Banned regarding article titles
Starting a third proposal on article titles after the first two failed can really not be explained as anything other than wikilawyering and/or being a vexatious litigant. You should really accept the fact that consensus does not agree with you on this issue, and let it go rather than request repetitive voting (note that guidelines are not generally instated by voting on them in the first place). I've tried discussing it and making this clear to you for quite some time, but you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept this.

To put an end to these fruitless one-sided discussions, and by your ArbCom probation, you are hereby banned from discussing, or commenting on, article titles on any page in the Wikipedia namespace, and are requested to use the relevant talk pages instead. Additionally, you are hereby banned from starting polls or votes related to article titles on any page in the Wikipedia_talk namespace, and are requested to use consensual discussion instead. Both bans have a duration of one month.

Please do not come to my talk page to contest this ban. If you must dispute it, please talk to the arbitration committee, who put you under probation in the first place. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you're commenting on article titles on a page in the Wikipedia namespace. You have been blocked for 24 hours. Have a nice day. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, a single revert of your censorship of the subsection section that criticised the errant speedy deletion of Title Neutrality is somehow a blockable offense now? Your censorship tactics are increasingly obvious. zen master T 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Illegitimate block by Radiant
I formally request unblocking, Radiant has invented a policy whereby people can't even contest article specific "bans" and applies it retroactively. Radiant and his allies have committed a double layer of censorship, first by speedy deleting the Title Neutrality proposal, then by blanking the section of the Speedy Deletion page where I criticized that censorship. Reverting censorship is something that Wikipedia's core principles encourage all editors to do. zen master T 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC) As a disinterested observer, I agree with Zen-master. I find the "discussion" with regards to zen master's proposal to be a whole lot of baiting. In my opinion, Radiant, you baited this individual into being 'disruptive' on Speedy deletions. I also found your attack on TitaniumDreads to be unprofessional and distasteful. This is not to say that I agree with Zen-master's proposal (which seems to be an interesting opinion worthy of more thought, rather than outright squelching). I can't say I know the full history here, but the appearance is that you and several other Administrative users are squelching this individual into a very tiny box with the intent of forcing this user out. I haven't seen any sound basis for this. Appearances speak, and by appearances your behaviour appears abusive, Radiant, whether intended or not. If there are serious mitigating circumstances, feel free to inform me, otherwise I would support a full review of this situation and your actions. (Noted.) -Kwh 01:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I invented no such thing. This ban and block were made because Zen-master was put on probation by the ArbCom, Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are serious mitigating factors. Please read over the complete record (don't forget the talk pages and archives) of Requests for arbitration/Zen-master, Talk:Conspiracy theory, Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, and Conspiracy theory. After you've digested all of that, then tell us if you think that Zen Master's proposal is still in need of more discussion. -Will Beback 01:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the matter of the ArbCom decision, since obviously it's dilatory and "not my job" to review the entire basis for that decision. I'm questioning the discussion I observed on Speedy deletion and application of the ArbCom probation judgement against ZM with regards to that discussion. I understand that ZM was having that discussion in the wrong forum, nonetheless nobody was exactly helping the situation by moving the text of the discussion to Deletion review or other means, only baiting ZM into continual response until ZM was banned for 'technically' discussing article titles in that venue, and being disruptive. I also question Radiant's unilateral expansion of ban criteria to 'discussion of article titles in the Wikipedia namespace', as opposed to 'disruptive behavior on any article' as the ArbCom initially concluded. I perceive this to be excessively Kafka-esque bureaucracy, regardless of ZM's past actions. -Kwh 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Additional background material that illustrates another dimension to the current conflict that ought to be considered. --BostonMA 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that User:Zen-master is also a sock puppet of user:Zephram Stark? -Will Beback 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that User:Zen-master is a sock puppet. I was pointing out that User:Radiant! has been in conflict with ZM on other occassions besides the current one and the ArbCom case.  In the particular case cited, a user's account was disabled and that user's talk page blanked and locked by an andministrator who was currently in an edit dispute with that user.  The talk page included a plea by the affected user for administrators to produce evidence that the affected user claimed would clear him of the sock-puppet charge.  I do not claim to know the truth of the underlying factual matter, i.e. whether Peter McConaughey was a sock-puppet of Zephram Stark.  However, I think such matters could have safely been dealt with without such haste, and in a more transparent manner. --BostonMA 12:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Once a sockpuppet of a banned user is identified, they're blocked without delay. A good deal of evidence was provided and there wasn't any real factual dispute. In addition, "Zephram" continued to create sockpuppets after his "Peter" account was blocked. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. My advice is that you'd be wise not to use the blocking of a banned troll as evidence of admin misconduct. Carbonite | Talk 13:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Carbonite, my working assumption is that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart and acted in good faith. However, people of good faith may differ in their opinions as to the best course of action.  I still believe that the matter could have and should have been dealt with with less haste and with more transparency.  Such a position does not at all imply that I think you committed admin misconduct.  Perhaps you were just giving me friendly advice, and I accept it as that. --BostonMA 13:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of my comment was that if you're attempting to assist Zen-master in some manner, using evidence of admin action against a sockpuppet of a banned user isn't terribly effective. My advice would be to choose a different line of reasoning. A good deal of evidence of Zephram's sockpuppetry was provided at WP:ANI and a number of admins as well as two ArbCom members found it more than sufficient. Carbonite | Talk 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that evidence was provided at WP:ANI. However, the user, at the time confined to making comments only on his talk page, made a request for specific evidence to be presented, i.e. his own IP address and the IP address of Zephram Stark as determined in a previous sock-puppetry case.  That evidence may have been inconclusive.  It also may have been the case that the IP address of Zephram Stark was no longer available.  However, rather than respond to the request in a direct manner, which in my opinion would have been reasonable, the account of the user in question was disabled and the request blanked.  Then the concerns expessed by others, such as myself and zen-master were also blanked.  --BostonMA 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If any admin believed there was a shadow of a doubt that "Peter" was a sockpuppet of Zephram, they could have unblocked. If "Peter" wished to present his evidence or side of the story, he could have emailed any admin, the mailing list or used IRC. If any other user wished to present evidence that "Peter" wasn't a sockpuppet, they could have used WP:ANI. IP evidence from the User:Zephram Stark account was long since purged (only two weeks or so are stored), a fact which Zephram was quite likely aware. Detailed evidence was provided to everyone on WP:ANI and it was never refuted by anyone. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that more should or could have been done, but I believe spending time on banned users is fairly unproductive. I thank you for your concern, but this is the last I'm going to comment on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept that your interest in pursuing the conversation has run out. Thank-you for taking the time to make the comments that you did.  You need not answer, however, there are some points in your most recent comments that I would like to address.
 * You argue that if there had been a shadow of a doubt about the case, then any admin could have unblocked Peter. The message that your statement conveys is that since no-one unblocked Peter, therefore, there was not a shadow of a doubt.  I do not read it that way.  I imagine that most admins would assume good faith on the part of another admin, and would only unblock if they were quite strongly convinced that first admin's actions were mistaken.
 * I am not an admin, but for my own part, the shadow of a doubt rests on the following consideration. Peter was banned as a sock-puppet based upon the similarity of his edits to those of Zephram.  One step removed from sock-puppetry is meat-puppetry.  However, after Zephram was banned, it would me my assumption that former "meat-puppets" had become free-agents so to speak.
 * With regards to the purging of the IP addresses, I understand, as did Peter, that the IP addresses of edits are regularly purged. However, Peter's request was for the IP addresses that were used in a prior sock-puppetry case.  Was Zephram's IP address relayed to members of ArbCom in one of their out-of-band communications, such as email, or perhaps kept in an IRC log?
 * A final point. You expressed the opinion that spending time on a banned user is unproductive.  I'm not sure I agree.  If it is true that Zephram Stark has returned to Wikipedia under various guises, then I'm not sure what has been gained by "banning" him.  Thank-you again for your time --BostonMA 16:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. zen master T 10:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zen-master is not a sockpuppet. Of Zephram or any other user. Carbonite | Talk 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the irony that, for trying to calmly and reasonably discuss things with Zen-master for several weeks, I may be considered to be an involved party. There has been neither haste nor lack of transparancy on this matter from my part. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This "zephram stark" discussion is all well and good but is an admin or someone looking into any of the following: 1) my unblock request 2) the errant deletion of Conspiracy theory titles and Title Neutrality, 3) Radiant's censorship of my criticism from Speedy deletions of his speedy deletion of "Title Neutrality" 4) Radian't abuse of admin privs by rollbacking comments posted to user talk pages informing people of the Title Neutrality vote 5) Radiant's invented interpretation of an arbcom decision and WP's probation policy to somehow prevent me from discussing things or pursuing certain avenues of criticism? In total this is beyond ridiculous. zen master T 18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh... while I don't think this ban was arrived at through a proper due-process, it may ultimately be for the greater good. ZM - your outburst makes it difficult for me to support your position. You might think harder on TitaniumDreads's admonition that your strategy in discussion could use some polish. -Kwh 18:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What "outburst"? Taking issue with my strategy can not possibly be justification for repeated censorship, though I would welcome specific detailed criticism. I don't think it's possible that apparent extreme apathy could result in even tacitly supporting Radiant's ridiculous censorship tactics. zen master T 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Zen-master, I'm certainly not censoring you. And I certainly didn't get involved out of apathy, though you've thoroughly annihilated any sympathy I had for your situation. Good luck, hope you figure it out. I will no longer monitor this discussion. -Kwh 02:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You will have to explain your use of the word "annihilated", it seems exponentially disproportional to the situation at hand. zen master T 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Kwh, could you clarify for me the outburst to which you are referring? If you mean ZM's comments immediately above yours, I'm curious why you have judged them so harshly.  They seem to me to be a fair request that discussion on ZM's talk page address issues that are important to ZM.  --BostonMA 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BostonMA - yes, I am referring to that. My position coming into this is that I saw a situation with what appeared to be divisive actions on both sides. I think there's room for consensus, if ZM's goal is to find the appropriate venue to discuss ZM's proposal. I don't think there's room for consensus if ZM's goal is to 'stick it' to Radiant. I didn't say that ZM doesn't have a right to discuss anything under the sun on their talk page, just that I can't support the position. -Kwh 02:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Kwh, your response doesn't make sense, if Radiant has abused his admin powers and committed censorship "sticking it" to him or otherwise making as many people aware of his actions as possible seems like a reasonable response. Let's disassociate an examination of the merits of the proposal from the tactics Radiant used to censor it. As a separate question, please list any actions of mine you found to be "divisive", how you arrived at that conclusion, and how it in any way justifies Radiant's censorship, banning, and blocking? zen master T 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Zen-master, I am following the discussion and have looked at all those things. But honestly, I think I know what would happen if I took your side. I don't particularly care to repeat the last six months. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What would happen if you took my side and what from the last 6 months are you uninterested in repeating? zen master T 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my comments contributed in a negative way to your request for unblocking. --BostonMA 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, would you kindly investigate any of the 5 issues listed above? zen master T 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly that. Your reply demonstrates very well what would happen and what I am uninterested in repeating, here or elsewhere. I'll continue to follow the discussion, but do not expect to participate further. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That does not make sense. zen master T 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom Harrison, Could you clarify for my sake what it is to which you are objecting? I have not seen the conflicts that you may have had with ZM, so your comment appears to me somewhat out of the blue.  I utilized ZM's talk page for a discussion with Radiant! and Carbonite in ways that were perhaps intrusive upon ZM's space.  He, I think rightly, requested a focus of attention on the issues that are burning for him.  I have done similar myself.  I apologized and he asked me for assistance.  I am not an admin, so I cannot give him admin assistance, but I can attempt to become knowledgeable regarding his situation.  So, I would appreciate further insight regarding what you found offensive.  Thanks --BostonMA 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in focusing on the important issues as I see them then you should look into the 5 examples of Radiant's and others' censorship above. I am unclear what Tom is saying and his recent posts to my talk page seem tangential at best, so please either follow up with Tom on his discussion page or ask him to succinctly summarize an actual position. 3 months ago Jayjg created an area within the original Conspiracy theory proposal for "new proposal" so I plan to merge User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles there when Radiant's illegitimate block expires. zen master T 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To obviate the need for further accusations, I will point out that the block has been discussed (and seconded) on WP:ANI, and that Category:Requests for unblock is frequently patrolled by admins. Hence, you can safely assume that the request has been seen. You can draw your own inferences from the fact that it wasn't undone. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * People should never assume anything. Woohookitty is your historic ally against me and my position, his and others' cheerleading and complicity in censorship certainly doesn't count as an uninvolved admin reviewing multiple complaints. The fact you are the one to suddenly notice and post to my talk page to try to portray all review as squashed is an inference in itself. It is actually a conflict of interest for you, an involved party, to attempt to categorize the status of any review or possible review. zen master T 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Petition
Hi Zenmaster, I removed some of your comments from your signature on the petition. The petition is not a good place to air your grievances. I figured you would still sign it without those comments, so I left your name up. If you're ok with the edit you can remove the note that it's been edited. I don't think the petition is not the right place to get into it. Focus on the issue the petition brings up, not your personal issue! I hope you agree! --Ben 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

 * Articles for deletion/Whatreallyhappened.com
 * Articles for deletion/Prisonplanet.com

--Striver 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It got speedie keep, only to get speedie deleted. --Striver 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific" racism source
There are several sources. A correlation doesn't say anything about the actual cause for the difference. Wether the cause might be race, sex, genes, nutrition, stress, or a combination. The consensus is that researchs shows a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Feel free to find a decent source about research stating different and I'll drop it. Another problem is that the picture in question seems to be more or less valid research and hence doesn't really belong in that article. --Scandum 03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain Talk:AIDS reappraisal archival
[Note: from his discussion page] Hello User:Rodasmith (aka "The Rod"), please explain why you selectively archived and reorganized away this comment of mine on Talk:AIDS reappraisal?

''...I've been thinking, it seems the entire concept of a "mainstream view" is nothing more than a media construct -- a random scientist would present their findings and solicit comments and criticism, not portray conclusiveness a certain way. Some segment of the media would be complicit in vast error should the purported mainstream view of AIDS be incorrect.''

Thanks. zen master T 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It took me quite awhile to go through that entire talk page to find which posts were related to ongoing discussions and still emiliminate the ones that appeared uncivil. As you know, there was quite alot of incivility there. When I skimmed the post, the words "portray conclusiveness" and "complicit in vast error" led me to interpreted the post as an attack on a position. Rereading that comment, however, I see that it was, in fact, a civil way of making your point without attacking.
 * I appreciate your involvement in that article and want to do what I can to ensure that you continue to contribute to it, as you have added high-quality content and collaborated in a friendly manner. I apologize for my oversight and assure you that I meant no ill will. If you would like, I would be happy to add your post back to the page. Or, if you prefer, feel free to add it back to the talk page youself. Peace. The Rod 20:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but now I'm more confused. I see that I did retain that comment. Are you asking why I removed the comment or why I retained it? 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now. Before I archived the page, you had two posts that included "Some segment of the media... would... be... complicit.... in vast error should the... mainstream view of AIDS be incorrect." I removed the second one, perhaps incorrect in thinking that you had already made that point. I left the first appearence of that sentiment because it also supported your request for a source of some statement on the article page. Please accept my apologies if my removal of the second appearence of that sentiment offended you and feel free to re-insert it if you wish. Respectfully, The Rod 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Killian documents
There's a proposal to split the Killian documents article in a way that you previously opposed: Talk:Killian documents. (You can skim past the initial comments about the title.) My inclination is that this split could be done without making our presentation POV, but I wanted to make sure you knew about it to point out anything I'm missing. JamesMLane t c 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Title Neutrality and Conspiracy theory titles
These were reviewed for the proper amount of time and archived properly. Nobody found any merit in your request. Kindly stop wasting our time. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for violation of ban regarding article titles
You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating your ban regarding discussion of article titles in the Wikipedia namespace. See. Since this is the second violation of this ban, the block length is 48 hours instead of 24. If you dispute this ban, please discuss it with the ArbCom. Carbonite | Talk 12:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request
Preventing users from discussing a certain subject is ridiculous. There is no Wikipedia policy that supports limiting what a user can discuss, that is obvious censorship. And in fact, user Jayjg created a subsection in version 1.0 of the Conspiracy theory proposal for "New proposal" so I was utilizing the space he provided for version 2.0 of the proposal. zen master T 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This ban has been in effect for nearly two weeks (since 16 January 2005). If you believed the ban to be "ridiculous", why haven't you discussed it with the ArbCom? This isn't the first time you've been blocked under the terms of this ban, so you were obviously aware that it would be enforced. The terms of the ban allow you to discuss article renaming on an article's talk page, but not in the Wikipedia namespace. Despite the awareness of the ban's terms, you again blantantly disregarded the ban and were again blocked. Carbonite | Talk 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true the ridiculousness isn't new. I interpret at least some members of the ArbCom to be complicit in censorship. I did not blatantly disregard the ban's terms, I specifically utilized the "New proposal" section in Conspiracy theory that User:Jayjg created, I did not create a new proposal or section myself. If the ban/restriction (that you created/invented) means I can't even follow up in a section someone else created then it's even more ridiculous than I thought. zen master T 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti
A final decision has been published in this case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are banned
By a ruling of the Arbitration Committee, you are banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, ending on February 06, 2007. Please do not create sockpuppets in contravention of this ban, or it will be reset. If you wish to appeal this ban, you may contact User:Jimbo Wales.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock is requested
No evidence to support a block of even 1 day was presented, let alone an entire year. This is totally unjust but does serve as another example of the treatment people who challenge the purported mainstream view receive. zen master T 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious there was a ton of evidence at Requests for arbitration/Zen-master and elsewhere for it, and you've been given hundreds of chances to play nicely. I'm all for dissenting opinions and alternate information if from reliable sources. But it's just not that hard to play nicely, and you've repeatedly shown you're not willing to. If you had presented your evidence and let the strength of your arguments win instead of edit warring you wouldn't be in this situation. - Taxman Talk 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Banning a user for an entire year outside of an actual full arbitration case is ridiculous. "Probation" was arbitrarily extended by one admin to a restriction that attempted to prevent me from even discussing or making in good faith proposals on discussion and project pages (see here). The "evidence" of which you speak is only examples of me challenging scientific racism, censorship, propaganda and obfuscation, and challenging subtle yet profound presumption inducing language. I know the other side in the race and intelligence dispute wants you to think that issue was only my "name calling" and "dispruption" but given the extreme degree of bias, racism, and racism inducing methods of presentation in race and intelligence I don't think my "nazi-esque" criticism (meaning I detected [and still detect] a nazi-esque level or degree of propaganda) was unreasonable. I apologized long ago for not calmly focusing on my criticism and clarified that I don't mean to make "personal attacks" but that does not mean I will stop challenging non neutrally presented articles. For some unknown reason the arbitration committee did not even analyze the exponential bias in the race and intelligence article and the context of my supposed "name calling", they rarely if ever focus on the core abstract/fundamental issues of a case. zen master T 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, because it is so easy to edit productively and not get in trouble repeatedly, but you repeatedly chose to make trouble. I'm a pretty neutral party in this, I've had a couple good interactions with you, but I see overwhelming evidence of you continually making trouble where it could easily be avoided. All difficult people try to make it out that their views are what are getting them in trouble. That's convenient, but rarely the case. We're an encyclopedia project and that needs to take precedence. People should either learn to play nicely or have another hobby. It's not the end of the world. Anyway, enough from me, there's an encyclopedia to write. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By "edit productively" you seem to mean or suggest "ignore exponential bias"? If so I completely disagree. And I think you completely underestimate the bias in articles like race and intelligence and the subtle yet profound censorship and obfuscation that has taken place within Wikipedia seemingly perpetrated by a small group of highly coordinated users and admins. zen master T 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this current discussion will go nowhere if it continues here. I suggest that you e-mail Jimbo Wales (his e-mail address is on his user page) or subscribe and write to the Wikien-l mailing list to discuss this issue further. --TML1988 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Months ago I emailed Jimbo over the race and intelligence issue and he said he'd look into it but never got back to me... zen master T 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Try e-mailing him again, but this time let the main focus of your e-mail be your block. Hopefully this will get his attention. --TML1988 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed him. Other people can investigate the issues too. zen master T 02:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)