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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<day1> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

The neutrality dispute over race and intelligence and related articles is complex and multi-layered. I allege a handful of "pro" editors repeatedly: use psychologically subtle and tricky non neutral language, use an extremely biased method of presentation, and have obfuscated and/or mischaracterized valid criticicsms. Other issues include their mislabeling my complaint that the article does not use neutrality language as "novel POV pushing".

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors use an extremely biased presentation method

• As of July 24 2005, the first sentence of the race and intelligence article is not neutral on multiple levels, "Race and intelligence is an area of intelligence research and social science studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence". [2] There is no scientific consensus for the conclusion that there are "group" differences in "intelligence". There is no scientific consensus on how to determine "group" or "race" based categories. There is no scientific consensus that IQ test results and related data objectively measure "intelligence". The word "consequences" is premature as nothing has been scientifically concluded. The word "origins" is premature or needs a caveat because the existence of "group" based differences in "intelligence" has not been determined with sufficient scientific consensus. [3] [4] (and see also scientific racism)

• On June 30 2005 I was reverted cleaning up what apparently was very suspicious emphasis. [5]

• Words that have some connotation of "race", such as "culture", are excessively used to bias all possible environmental causes and also to presumptively induce readers into thinking about the issue only in terms of "race" (framed exclusively in terms of "race" so the issue is exclusively thought about only in terms of "race"). [6] Note the unnecessarily suggestive section and sub article titles which should instead be labeled, using simple generic language, as "environmental causes": [7] Race and intelligence (Culture-only or partially-genetic explanation) We should decouple description of an issue with examinations of the cause that explains that issue (a one sided presentation and framing of the issue in this case seems to have lead to a one sided, unscientific, errant determination of "race" as the cause).

• On June 16 2005, soon after I pointed out on the talk page that "nutrition and intelligence" is an equivalent way of looking at and presenting the issue User:Gracefool created a redirect from nutrition and intelligence to race and intelligence. [8] This seems to fit a pattern amongst the "pro" editors on the talk page, their non neutral goal seems to be to force other possible causes for the alleged "IQ disparity", such as nutrition, to be mentioned only within the framework of describing the issue exclusively in terms of "race", never using their own terms. In other words, other causes are mentioned as a possibility, but the issue is only ever allowed to be described in terms of "race" and "intelligence" and is never allowed to be described using words from other possible causes such as "wealth" and "nutrition". [more evidence forthcoming]

• "Pro" editors of race and intelligence are also the primary editors of articles that seemingly criticize "race and intelligence" research. I assert this is evidence that the "pro" editors are sugar coating and mischaracterizing criticisms of "race and intelligence". As of July 24 2005 all but one of the edits to race and intelligence controversy were made by User:Rikurzhen. [9] The controversy article does not mention criticisms against charges of generally unscientific research, nor the lack of consensus for most conclusions, nor how the "race and intelligence" research field exclusively frames the issue at a language usage level. [10]

• As of July 24, 2005 IQ test bias is acknowledged as a possibility, yet the title and other parts of the article, notably the introduction, continue to conclude, without basis, that "intelligence" can be objectively measured and there are objectively "group" differences in "intelligence". Also note the same excessive use of the word "culture". [11] If there are valid allegations of test bias why is the article titled "race and intelligence" and why does the article conclude so many things without consensus?

Evidence "pro" race and intelligence editors obfuscate or mischaracterize

• On June 27, 2005 I asked for an explanation for exactly how promoting neutral language and/or fair and scientific presentation is "original research" or "POV pushing", I am still waiting for a response. I believe this is evidence of "errantly citing wikipedia policies to stifle or mischaracterize criticisms". [12] and later on July 1st [13]

• On June 23, 2005, through a long series of edits described as "archiving", most of my entire core criticism discussions up until that point were deleted from the talk page without any archiving, or readability and organization was damaged. Here is the deleting or incomplete and unorganized archiving of numerous core criticism discussions (presumably under the banner of "starting the discussion over without personal attacks"), note the time stamps of discussions that had been active less than three hours before. [14] Here is my subsequent restoration of the completely deleted talk page comments [15]

• Mid to late June 2005 apparent "name calling" or "personal attacks". I ask that the arbitration committe and/or the wikipedia community help clarify (and have an official process for determining) exactly what constitutes a "personal attack" because the ability for some editors to outright delete lengthy sections because of some apparent "personal attacks" (see section immediately above) is a very dangerous precedent as far as preserving critical talk page discussions is concerned. Given the complex details of the lengthy race and intelligence neutrality dispute discussion, and especially because of what I saw/see as repetition used to perpetuate language confusion, I don't believe my use of the terms "nazi" (later rephrased to "nazi-esque") or "racist" to describe some "pro" editors talk page statments, repetition of language confusion (apparent propaganda), and one sided method of presentation was unwarrented.

• On June 29 2005 (and subsequently edited on July 5 2005) User:Arbor created 2 archives with misleading titles: "Archive 8 (mediation by Uncle Ed)" and "Archive 9 (inherent language bias)". [16] [17] [18] [19] I consider User:Ed Poor also not neutral on this issue and is a party to this RFA and to my knowledge was never officially made the mediator of this dispute. Also, I am not arguing that the language used in the article and on the talk page has some sort of "intrinsic" bias (not "inherent language bias"), I am arguing that the language is either needlessly ambiguous and unnecessarily confusing, or, was intentionally designed by biased people to be confusing to advance a decidedly non neutral political agenda. In either case it should be cleaned up. All previous talk page archives (one through seven) in this article were not given any "extra" title [20]

selections of Zen Master's talk page posts copied from Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 9 (inherent language bias); most comments are aimed at me:

• Did all or most of the "conservative" POV pushers on wikipedia attend the same subtle uses of language skunkworks propaganda factory/university? zen master T 01:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your repetition and emphasis of the same language misuse exposes your motivation. zen master T 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ... I am not directly accusing you, I merely point out that racism is the most plausible explanation/motivation for your actions ... You are quite literally trying to trick people into assuming race is the cause of the alleged discrepancy by repetitively and exclusively framing the effect in terms of race. The fact that many psychology text books and literature also misuse language and/or needlessly commingle cause and effect is not evidence for anything (although that is profoundly suspicious additionally). zen master T 02:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My point is you and others repeatedly frame the issue (the alleged discrepancy) exclusively in racial terms apprently because you want to intentionally confuse cause and effect. That is racist. ... zen master T 02:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I consider it subtly yet profoundly racist to frame the effects of the alleged discrepancy repeatedly and exclusively in racial terms with the apparent goal being to confuse effect with cause. ... I am the only one that finds this repeated use of subtle yet profound language propaganda on wikipedia and elsewhere to be very suspicious? It is a master key that potentially unlocks everything. zen master T 19:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The goal seems to be to use endless repetition and emphasis on race in describing the discrepancy's effects for the purpose of wearing people down into assuming effect is cause. That is the most racist thing I've ever heard of. ... zen master T 20:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He is a model of propaganda and misdirection as far as this article is concerned at least. ... You are obviously trying to perpetuate psychologically damaging language by needlessly commingling cause and effect. zen master T 01:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The way you think/present this issue is racist. ... zen master T 23:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You will know them by their words. zen master T 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Psychological word games is not science. You will know them by their excessive lack of, or misdirecting, context wikilinking. zen master T 09:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This article should not be about "beliefs", instead the scientific method should be utilized which requires using neutral language which does not needlessly commingle cause and effect. You say, "it's clearly something associated with race" but that is NOT a scientific conclusion. Only a Nazi would repeatedly frame the issue the way you do. Was my "accusation" accurate at least? What other plausible explanation is there for the psychologically misdirecting way you frame this issue? zen master T 01:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What other plausible explanation is there for using psychologically tricking language to misframe this issue? zen master T 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how framing the issue objectively or requiring neutral language no matter what is original research? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is bound by the scientific method in its quest of neutrality. We should indeed report the "major POVs" as you call them but that does not mean we should simply regurgitate psychologically tricking language, doing so would be unscientific at the very least. Most people accused of being a nazi would deny it... zen master T 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of my comments:

flipping out:

• All of us! Everyone with a PhD is secretly conspiring to use propaganda to obfuscate this issue. From textbook writers to IQ researchers to the staunchest critics of IQ researchers. And my motivation? PURE EVIL!!! I work on Wikipedia for the love of EVIL and obfuscation; that's why I meticulously add citations when I write and spend lots of time consulting sources -- so no one can verify my work -- propaganda!! obfuscate!!! EVIL!!!! ... enough of this ... someone else will have to answer your questions --Rikurzhen 22:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

statments to ZM about WP NOR and NPOV policy:

• you seem unwilling to accept our explanation for why, fundamentally, research has happened as it has. but you have no choice but to recognize the proximal matter that your personal opinions don't constitute a source for changing this article... --Rikurzhen 07:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• your comments are completely unsupported by the facts/opinions found in published sources acceptable for use in wikipedia. you're wholly ignoring both our explanations and the material already found in the article. nothing productive is going on here. --Rikurzhen 08:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't mean any of our beliefs, I mean the beliefs of researchers about which is this article is written. We don't get to decide what's true, only to report what major POVs exist and whether they are consensus or not. How many ways can I say it: WP:NOR!!! --Rikurzhen 01:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

June

• 16 June
  • In a long exchange with Rikurzhen, Zen-master makes a post described as "response to apparent racist propagandists": '[...]Repeatedly presenting this issue in the manner you do using psychological word game trickery propaganda is obviously racist, just admit the truth.' zen master T 06:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) [21]

• 30 June
  • Discussing several viewpoints and how to include them, ZM attacks me. 'Even a random racist would want to present this issue scientifically to achieve objective conclusions rather than use psychologically tricky language games, which is orders of magnitude more evil, I hope you enjoy your jail cell soon enough.' zen master T 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC) [22]
  • My response: 'ZM, I'm afraid your conduct has just crossed the line. We're done.[...]' 30 June 2005 19:38 (UTC) [23]
  • After this incident, User:Ed Poor intervened and requested that we (and User:Patrick0Moran) unconditionally apologize to each other, which Patrick and I did [24][25] while Zen-master did not [26].

July

• 1 July
  • Discussing introductory material, ZM again attacks. 'You say face facts yet you perpetuate and repeat presumption inducing language, why? The fact is you and others choose to present this issue only in terms of "race" or "genetics" out of some political motivation when there are many other ways of presenting it. [...] You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world.[...]It is as if you and others want the world to be controlled by an artificial racist "IQ" based economic caste system, but Truth and justice will come soon.' zen master T 1 July 2005 08:50 (UTC) [27]
  • My response: 'ZM, please rephrase or edit to remove the personal attacks and hypotheses about motivation. It's not right for you to phrase things in this way. For my part, I have apologized to you without reservation for losing sight of the WP:NPA policy. I will be happy to respond to a rancor-free version.' DAD 1 July 2005 21:21 (UTC) [28]

• 15 July
  • In discussion on R&I's candidacy for Featured Article status, ZM again attacks. 'I theorize that most/all of the pro editors of race and intelligence must be ultra racist or insanely politically motived themselves...' zen master T 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC) [29]

• Ongoing
  • Zen-master repeatedly pushed his POV that "race and intelligence" is "presumption inducing language"; when pushed for sources, he has provided links to rather vitriolic websites that, when examined[30], do not actually substantiate his POV. Despite his POV-pushing, a straw poll he initiated [31] indicates that no other editor shares his POV [32].

Two fundamental problems, (1) persistent set to perceive malevolent intentions & conspiracy, & (2) inability to cognize fundamental scientific requirements, manifest early. The component of klesa (affective contamination) is too heavy to be remediated. I don’t know where to go from here:

Z’s first demonstration of a psychological set. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15148960&oldid=15148411

You argue that the title merely points out IQ discrepancy allegations but you also seem to conclude or hint, as does this article, that race is the cause rather than environmental factors can have effects? That is racist. Needlessly commingling cause and effect is a technique generally only used by subtle POV pushers…. [T]his racism is especially obvious and profoundly insidious.

Z implies that he can divine the motivations behind the writing of passages that he finds controversial:

[T]his article haphazardly DESCRIBES the alleged discrepancy ONLY in racial terms FOR THE PURPOSE of implying cause.

He asks another rhetorical question implying a conspiracy of apologists:

Did all or most of the ‘conservative’ POV pushers on wikipedia attend the same subtle uses of language skunkworks propaganda factory/university?

It has been difficult to make any progress in a situation wherein no crucial issues are ever directly addressed but always return as accusatory questions and rhetorical devices.

Sometimes Zen-master retreats from accusations – only to return to the attack immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15152584&oldid=15152404

Responding to Rikurzhen above, I am not directly accusing you, …. You are quite literally trying to trick people into assuming race is the cause of the alleged discrepancy by repetitively and exclusively framing the effect in terms of race

I tried to be conciliatory, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15208659&oldid=15207765 and got called "racist."

My point is you and others repeatedly frame the issue (the alleged discrepancy) exclusively in racial terms apprently because you want to intentionally confuse cause and effect. That is racist.

Rikurzhen elucidated the difficulties of rational inquiry. Zen-master responded by asserting subtle manipulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15245162&oldid=15244993

Rikurzhen showed the need to focus on evidence, and avoid ungrounded accusations of conspiracy. Zen-master responded: “You have already given yourself away in the manner in which you respond.…. That is the most racist thing I've ever heard of.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15248674&oldid=15248480

Rikurzhen said contrary points of view are presented, but Zen-master made a personal attack:

Rikurzhen, you keep playing psychological language games. …. you repeatedly, to the point of propagandizing, describe the discrepancy's effects only in racial terms for the apparent purpose of wearing people down into errantly assuming that effect equals cause. How many people have attended this psychological misuse of language propaganda skunkworks factory/university? it must be quite few? What is your motivation for doing what you do? It seems infinitely evil to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15256432&oldid=15256207

Nectarflowed objected to personal attacks. Zen-master responded:

He is a model of propaganda and misdirection as far as this article is concerned at least. …. You are obviously trying to perpetuate psychologically damaging language by needlessly commingling cause and effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15266701&oldid=15264616

Rikurzhen pointed out Zen-master’s logical flaw. A personal attack followed:

You are a master at psychological language games I now see judging from these two paragraphs (nice use of ellipses), also your buddies sure know how to fill in space below. …. You yet again tried to confuse cause and effect (factor = effect), the obviousness of your repetition gives you away. Repeatedly presenting this issue in the manner you do using psychological word game trickery propaganda is obviously racist, just admit the truth.

I rebutted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15276524&oldid=15274753

Zen-master then said: “The way you think/present this issue is racist.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15321534&oldid=15315260

Nectarflowed raised the crucial problem in thinking. Zen-master attacked him too:

The only plausible answer I can come up with to that question is that you are a racist propagandist (please correct me if I am wrong).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15357018&oldid=15356694

Zen-master claimed once more that Rikurzhen is “racist.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15359222&oldid=15358510

I objected: ad hominem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15591840&oldid=15580214

Zen-master put the following edit summary up: “this article is the anti-thesis of the scientific method, especially if you analyze the psychology of language used” Zen-master said, telescoped, “Only a Nazi would say what you said.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&diff=15601046&oldid=15600915

I objected: “That's enough ad hominem attack.”

Zen-master attacked us both. I asked him if it was his actual intention to call me a Nazi.

The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific?”

The fundamental problem of thought, which five or six of us have all tried in ways both short and prolix to explain to Zen-master, is that it is impossible to discover whether there is a connection between two factors without seeing through objective studies whether or not there is a strong correlation between them, and that correlation does not prove causation. Every time one of us tries to explain, even to bring this matter up for question, it is evaded by a liturgy of rhetorical questions and accusations to the effect that a conspiracy exists to bury the true way to discover the truth. P0M 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]