User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An article which requires some delicacy due to strong views, and has for the most part been well run in a civil manner, has been disrupted the past 2 months by User:Ciz?. Having run the gamut of reasonable discussion, contributors to the page in question request arbitration and a long term full wikipedia ban. In the meantime Ciz continues to engage in large scale vandalism, inappropriate editing, and ranting.


Ciz has posted to the article and talk page under the following accounts and anon IPs:

As User:24.61.31.36 talk contributions (h005004989f7b.ne.client2.attbi.com)
As User:66.30.122.120 talk contributions (h0006b10c4b51.ne.client2.attbi.com)
As User:Ciz talk contributions


Vandalism and attacks to date include:

"Vandalism in progress", RFC, mediation, two 24 hour sysop bans, two vprot lockdowns of the article for vandalism (including mass deletion of books and academic sources), vandalism of at least one other unrelated article, editing of other users comments, multiple obsessive personal attacks on furrys, and libellous personal attacks on users talk pages and in article talk pages.


The latest vandalism of the article was Dec.16 and involved vandalism of the first half, and deletion of the entire last half of the article mid sentence. This included all sources and "other wiki" links. [1].

The latest vandalism of arbitration evidence was also Dec.16 and involved deletion of the last half of this evidence page. [2]


Note:

  1. Please check history of this page prior to review. Ciz has a track record of vandalising complaints against him.
  2. Most of this evidence page is now complete, however some areas are still being compiled (mainly: personal attacks, talk page summary). This note will be removed shortly, when evidence page is complete.
  3. Cross-link to ArbCom request: Requests for arbitration#Ciz


Contents

[edit] Ban request

The request will be that Ciz is banned for the maximum period as follows:

1) A total and long term ban from Wikipedia.

2) If this is not deemed appropriate then a ban from the following articles:

  1. Zoophilia
  2. "Furry" related pages such as Furry fandom
  3. Content related to these subjects in other articles, such as Sexual orientation, Paraphilia, animal cruelty, animal abuse etc
  4. Any requests or activity in respect of any of the above topics, including (1) posts about users related to zoophilia/furry, (2) posting on user and article talk pages related to zoophilia/furry, and (3) creation, modification and deletion of articles or posts or part thereof (including RFC, VfD, tagging, policy), which is related to zoophilia/furry in any way.

[edit] Summary of issue

Taken from RfM text (below):

The Zoophilia (talk) article is a reference used by those seeking to understand this affinity or attraction (dictionary.com) between humans/animals, in both its sexual and nonsexual form. There is a great deal of formal research, law and history on the social, legal and psychological aspects of these subjects, and since it is factual and sourced, NPOV has seemingly been reached on most of it.
It seems Ciz is willfully attempting to polarise the article and use it as an advocacy article against the one topic of bestiality, by entirely ignoring all discussion to the contrary regarding the actual article or its subject.

The article has gone through reverts, vandalism, serious personal attacks, deletion and editing of others views, slanderous accusations, putting words in others mouths, VIP, RFC, RfM, and has now been voted pretty unanimously by every current contributor plus a few lurkers for ArbCom.

Both the RFC, and the vote re ArbCom referral (on the talk page), were also vandalised by Ciz, as was the Adolph Hitler article.

Since that vote, Ciz has persisted. He has posted the article to VfD (unanimous keep, 2 votes to delete Ciz), and continued to vandalise the article and also the ArbCom evidence page on multiple occasions.

I am unaware at present of any significant contribution made by Ciz to any topic other than this one topic, and as described above, and in two cases his contributions were edits related to his furry/zoophilia obsession with respect to Sonic the hedgehog and friends. In essense, he has acted as a vandal with a single viewpoint who has proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and has little interest in anything beyond his own view.

We feel that should he develop a significant personal interest in a different article, these same issues will probably arise there too, as fundamentally he does not want to contribute collaboratively and has at no time shown the slightest ability or care for doing so. Indeed his idea of collaboration is insults and slander, often on highly spurious grounds.

Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that a total and long term ban from Wikipedia is appropriate, and this is what is requested.

We ask the ArbCom to agree that we have acted with appropriate patience and reserve, but despite much patience, many flames, and much time, there is just no sign whatsoever of any intent to change, nor any significant indication Ciz wants to change enough to participate appropriately in Wikipedia for the foreseeable future.

Failing which a ban at least from this article, and other tangential or related pages and issues.

[edit] History of article

A good sense of the discussion prior to Ciz can be found on the single archived talk page from that period, from the heading "discussion" 1/2 way down the page (direct link).

This archive ends at the point Ciz arrived (Oct. 21 2004)

The history of the article up until RfM (Nov. 3 2004) is also summarised within the RfM text below.

The article was locked for much of Nov. 2004, and User:sannse was attempting mediation (failed) during which time Ciz was active on the talk page but not on the article. Editing resumed when the article was unlocked in early December, and was immediately vandalised as summarised in the ArbCom discussion below. This is why there has been a 5 week gap between RfM and the seeking of consensus for this request.

A good summary of Ciz viewpoint is Talk:Zoophilia/Archive4

Your response to the effort to keep NPOV is "I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?" [FT2]
If someone defends the sexual abuse of animals (like this entry does) I assume they do. [Ciz]

[edit] VIP (Oct. 28 2004)

[edit] Text of VIP

Sysop User:schneelocke posted VIP and email complaint under 66.30.122.120 link

[edit] RFC (Nov. 2 2004)

[edit] Text of RFC

  • Talk:Zoophilia Consensus on NPOV was broadly reached to date, but this article has now had to be protected due to one user's attempt in the last week, to follow their own agenda. The subject of this article is broadly speaking, social, psychological, legal, historic and other information regarding emotional/sexual bonds between humans and animals. There appears to be a user who wants to convert it to an animal sexual abuse page and deems any discussion of his disliked POV, an animal abuser. Issues arising - POV, ranting, name calling (including 2 sysops), and mis-quoting of others sources to discredit previous comments. Discussion not making progress.
(Note: The user concerned was anon until recently, was banned for 24 hours following his vandalism before the page was protected)
  • Original RFC [3]

[edit] Ciz and others response

Ciz' response to this was to vandalise the RFC by adding text to it which was neither part of the original RFC nor accurate. In his additions, he added as if a complaint made against him, that, "He is not willing to agree with the statement that it is ok to have sex with animals."

This is a "straw man", as no such argument was in fact made against Ciz. Ciz himself has repeatedly attacked other contriibutors and sysops in this manner elsewhere though (see "personal attacks")

  • Text added by Ciz [4]
  • Ciz vandalism of RFC removed by sysop [5]

[edit] Request for Mediation (Nov.3 2004)

[edit] Text of RfM

"From WP:RFC a few days ago:

Consensus on NPOV was broadly reached to date, but this article has now had to be protected due to one user's attempt in the last week, to follow their own agenda. The subject of this article is broadly speaking, social, psychological, legal, historic and other information regarding emotional/sexual bonds between humans and animals. There appears to be a user who wants to convert it to an animal sexual abuse page and deems any discussion of his disliked POV, an animal abuser. Issues arising - POV, ranting, name calling (including 2 sysops), and mis-quoting of others sources to discredit previous comments. Discussion not making progress.
(Note 1: The user concerned was anon until recently, was banned for 24 hours following his vandalism before the page was protected)
(Note 2: The users approach can be seen in his response to the above RFC, quoted verbatim: "Discussion not making progress" - "You mean, me (sic: not) agreeing with you in that showing bestiality is positive light is ok?")

History of Article:

  • Discussion up to 21 July 2004 amicable, no great controversy.
  • Sept 6, a question was raised over the title of a subsection, no great controversy again.
  • Oct 1, after 2.5 months of being settled, vote proposed on removal of last NPOV tag. (This tag related to a fairly minor unheated question whether something was a useful generalisation or not, and was in the process of being amicably discussed and apparently mostly resolved by Oct 21)
  • Oct 21 - Oct 28 [sic, actually just Oct.28], WP:Zoophilia article repeatedly vandalised by an anon IP. 6 reverts needeed before page finally locked by sysop.
  • Oct 28 - Nov 3, Same user (now calling himself Ciz) smears and vandalises, posts long rants in BOLD, taking the number of talk pages from 1 to 4 within 4 days. Other breaches of policy include:
Breach of wikiquette, breach of NPOV, responding to any attempt to explain NPOV with personal attacks and allegations, ignoring 2 sysops and multiple users who put time and effort into explaining, trying to make the article about his (different) agenda, accusing those seeking NPOV with comments such as "bet you have sex with your pets huh?", deleting comments made by others from the talk page on at least 2 occasions, accusing sysops (and indeed most contributors) of supporting or engaging in bestiality, weasel words, criticising users for references which he himself had invented and attributed to them ... etc

Background to the article:

The WP:Zoophilia article is a reference used by those seeking to understand this affinity or attraction (dictionary.com) between humans/animals, in both its sexual and nosexual form. There is a great deal of formal research, law and history on the social, legal and psychological aspects of these subjects, and since it is factual and sourced, NPOV has seemingly been reached on most of it.
It seems Ciz is now willfully attempting to polarise and use it as an advocacy article against bestiality, by entirely ignoring all discussion to the contrary regarding the actual article or its subject.

Resolution measures undertaken to date:

  • 6 reversions of vandalism
  • Article locked
  • It seems the user was also banned for a while, unclear when (if at all) he was unbanned.
  • Detailed explanation in Talk artcile, many times, by many users
  • WP:RFC procedure
  • Straw poll of opinion from the talk page: Since Oct 21 (the start of this vandalism), the following users have posted to Talk:Zoophilia: Ciz, PMC, Ralesk, FT2, FOo, Schnee (sysop), ContiE (sysop)... the verdict seems unanimous including the two sysops, every other contributor has stated words to similar effect.
  • Ciz has been repeatedly asked not to vandalise, not to resort to personal attack, to read and become familiar with prior debate, to read WP:NPOV, not to libel others..... and has repeated since being asked.
  • Ciz has also been asked numerous times not to invent false prior statements or attribute false opinions to other contributors for the purpose of setting up "straw men" to knock down.
  • It is my feeling (and from the debate, probably that of other contributors), that Ciz would not care for wiki-mediation, however in the attempt to reach a positive outcome I am trying anyway.
  • One last attempt to explain the subject of the page, ignored.

There is broad consensus amongst all contributors that this behaviour is against policy and Wiki-quette, and the user seems to have no grasp of NPOV despite many explanations and much patience.

Mediation or advice please. FT2 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Results of mediation

  • RfM was posted Nov.3, and ultimately failed (never really got underway, Ciz unable/unwilling to work with mediation process or mediator)
  • Mediation formally ended without success Nov.25
"Just to make sure everyone is informed... mediation has ended without success I'm afraid. If problems continue, you may want to consider arbitration. Sorry this didn't help -- User:Sannse|sannse (talk) 13:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) (meditation committee)" [6]


[edit] Ciz and others response

Mediator sannse posts on Ciz talk page:

  • "I understand the issues involved on both sides, so please don't go over them again at this point - that can happen within the mediation. For now please just let me know if you will give mediation a try" sannse (talk) 10:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [7]
  • "Ciz. Please could you answer the question about mediation before making any other edits to Wikipedia. If you continue editing without replying, I will have to take that as a decision to decline mediation. Regards" -- sannse (talk) 23:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) [8]
  • "Ciz. There is further discussion on Requests for mediation. Again, please respond there before making other edits. Thanks" -- sannse (talk) 14:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) [9]
  • "I've not heard from you on the above question again. For this to work, you need to participate actively in this mediation. That means concentrating on this, rather than editing Talk:Zoophilia. That way we may be able to get this dispute sorted. In order to do that, we need to decide on a mediator and then on a venue. If you keep arguing on Talk:Zoophilia at the same time, there really can be no progress ... so please concentrate on the mediation discussion and let Talk:Zoophilia go for a while - in the long run this means more chance of agreeing an end to this dispute with both sides satisfied. Thanks" -- sannse (talk) 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) [10]
  • "Ciz. Since I asked you to stop replying on Talk:Zoophilia and concentrate on mediation - you have made a further eight edits there and I have heard nothing from you. If you are serious about mediation, then please contact me. If not, I will have to end this now. Mediation is always voluntary, but unless you commit to it, it has no chance of helping. Regards" -- sannse (talk) 20:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) [11]

[edit] Links

[edit] Article talk page re arbitration (Dec. 10 2004)

[edit] Text of debate to ascertain sentiment with regard to Arbitration

"In view of the fact that

  1. Ciz has little idea of Wiki policy and has shown this for some time now
  2. The article has had to be protected from vandalism by Ciz several times now
  3. Progress on the article is stalled by the inability of Ciz to grasp basic wiki concepts such as "logic" and "rational impersonal discussion"
  4. Mediation was attempted and failed
  5. Within minutes of adding academic mainstream material to the article Ciz's responses have been:
    • Delete/revert [12]
    • Add comment in article body "Dont compare gays to bestials"
      (twice above, once in article body same link)
    • Label academic research "crap"
      (above)
    • Weasel words
      (above, "Most gays...")
    • More POV/weasel words, this time added to the article itself
      ([13] "unless you believe having sex with animals is abusive in itself, as most do")

[this added later after vandalism of the above:] To which one can now add

  • Removal of evidence and citations from above list, including the complete deletion of the last point in toto. [14]


I am inclined to take the matter of Ciz to the Arbitration Committee, with the request they order that Ciz will be banned from this article.

Please vote below if you would be supportive, against, or have other opinions on this matter at this time. Note that ArbCom does not in fact require a consensus to accept a matter, so this is more a "straw poll" of feeling. (Sock puppets and suspected sock puppets, including unknown anon IPs, may be ignored)"

FT2 23:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ciz and others response

Would support if it was taken to ArbCom:

  • Support. FT2 20:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And in fact, given that Ciz has neither made any other contributions nor shown that he's even willing to accept Wikipedia's guidelines and principles, I'd support asking to ban him completely from Wikipedia, too. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Sillydragon 22:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Although I'm a bit unsure whether arbitration is the right thing here, it seems to be the only thing left to do. Maybe we should not collect evidence on this case until arbitration actually begins, tho.. --Conti|✉ 23:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Regardless of one's opinion of zoophilia, there is no excuse for Ciz's conduct as a Wikipedia editor. Since virtually all his "contributions" to Wikipedia appear to be on this dispute (and see below), it would seem he has little interest in contributing usefully to Wikipedia. This guy, at least under the Ciz account, literally does nothing on Wikipedia other than fight about zoophilia. Therefore, I concur with Schneelocke. --FOo 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and agree with Schneelocke in asking for a ban. Basically, I agree with all the reasons we've already stated. Ciz is only interested in an endless revert war on zoophilia, evident from his lack of contributions elsewhere. We need to get him out of here. He's only wasting all of our time, and if we could sort this out once and for all it'd be fantastic. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 23:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. There is simply no reason to pretent that Ciz is anything more than a persistant vandal. While I in no way favour blanket bans, he was given a lot of leeway, certainly enough to make his blocking/banning justifiable. Paranoid 23:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This nonsense has gone on way too long. Zetawoof 23:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Although he makes some valid complaints, Ciz seems unwilling to edit constructively and unable to understand - let alone tolerate - other POVs. JAQ 00:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Please ban User:Ciz immediately. I have zero tolerance for vandalism and wasteful appointments to VfD. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Late addition Please ban User:Ciz immediately. I have zero tolerance for vandalism and wasteful appointments to VfD (GRider, originally here

Would be against:

  • (none)

[edit] Activities of Ciz since ArbCom vote decided

[edit] (1) VfD (Dec.15)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zoophilia

[edit] Full text of VfD request

"This page blatantly promotes bestiality ("zoophilia") and uses fake words like 'zoosexual.' --Ciz? 18:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)" [15]

[edit] Other user responses

As at Dec.16: Keep 23, Delete 0, Merge 0, Redirect 0

Ciz interjections highlighted)

  • Keep. Controversy and POV are not reasons for deletion. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 18:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - A very thorough article. Seems fairly NPOV to me. Someone's put a lot of work into this article, I see no reason to throw it away. Satori 18:38, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Wyss 18:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is a matter of standing tradition that Wikipedia is not censored by topic or bowdlerized. Iff the page has POV problems, they should be fixed. - RedWordSmith 18:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This VfD nom is the perfect case for rejection and de-listing within 24 hours. GRider\talk 19:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Xezbeth 19:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ciz? needs a bit of education. Agree with GRider. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and keep a watchful eye on Ciz? for further actions of this nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because you don't like the topic of an article is not grounds to delete it. Read articles about less disgusting things if this isn't the kind of thing you want to read about. But at Wikipedia we don't make value judgments on our topics so it's going to stay. Ливай | ☺ 21:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep FT2 22:20, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This VfD is just another abuse of this wiki by a chronic POV-pusher. JAQ 22:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Zoophilia. Delete the vandal. --FOo 23:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Sillydragon 23:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: last I checked, losing a ten page debate on the article's talk page wasn't grounds for deletion. Shane King 23:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. For those interested, a request for arbitration with the goal of a permanent of ban of Ciz from Wikipedia is currently being prepared; see User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) ? 00:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Get a life, Ciz. PMC 00:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Neutrality/talk 01:02, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Eww. Gross. Also, an obvious keep. Unlike the childlove gang that tried hijacking the site a few months back with those articles of theirs, this is totally NPOV, totally encyclopedic and a totally referenced article on a real psychological disorder. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Did you read the whole page? Its treated as normal and ok. --Ciz? 04:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) [16]
  • Concur with Lucky 6.9. Incidently, Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism and The Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedians think that its normal or ok to shove Jews or Roma into ovens. Edeans 07:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to any particular sentences like "Wikipedia hereby endorses the act of having sex with animals?" Just because the article describes such practices and the research surrounding the subject and doesn't call them immoral doesn't mean the article condones it. No matter how hard you try to push your point of view, Wikipedia will not make moral judgments like "these people are sickos" or "such and such an activity is bad behavior", simply because not everybody believes this. We are here to report universal knowledge, and to state who believes what, not to tell right from wrong. Whether or not an activity is immoral is up to the readers to decide for themselves. Ливай | ☺ 07:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This page should not have been listed for VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. the article does cover the many objections as well as the views of the proponents. Since there are still unanswered questions, the article would be flawed if it did try to draw its own conclusions. iMeowbot 09:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. This is hillarious. Where do I sign up to cancel Ciz's AOL account? —RaD Man (talk) 09:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be siding more with the pro-side than the anti-side. --Ciz? 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) (when JAQ was explaining NPOV in the VfD)
  • Keep, obviously. --fvw* 19:16, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

[edit] (2) Further vandalism to article

  1. Dec.15 - 6 further posts including VfD, template NPOV, subtle edits to shade meaning of "Zoosadism" and his usual form of edits such as: "Although many medical terms have been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind of sex prefer to be known as 'zoophiles,' a word borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community. The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual 'partners' as well as themselves..." [17]
    Dec.15-16 Reverted (Zetawolf, Neutrality)
  2. Dec.16 - Repeated above, adding these edits back again under the title "The topic is for arguments against zoophilia" [18]
  3. Dec.16 - Deleted an "on the other hand" side of an argument leaving only the side against zoophilia in the article [19]
    Dec.16 Reverted (Premeditated Chaos)
  4. Dec.16 - Deleted information on American Psychiatric Association (APA) view of zoophilia and its classification in their Diagnostic and Statistical manual [20]
    Dec.16 Reverted (ZetaWoof)
  5. Dec.16 - Vandalised 1st half and deleted entire 2nd half of article, including "extent of occurance", "arguments", "counter arguments", "books", "references" and "other wiki links" [21]
    Dec.16 Reverted (JAQ)


[edit] (3) Vandalism of this ArbCom request

In the same way that Ciz edited the original article to remove a header "Legal", so that information from his POV would incorrectly appear to be part of the article summary (see #List of posts to article item 12 [22], Ciz also edited this ArbCom request page to remove the header "Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban", replacing it by his own previously added header "The harmful effects of bestiality".

Link: [23]
And again: see [24] ... FT2 13:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Other evidence sorted by "type of abuse"

[edit] List of posts to main article

The following is a full and comprehensive list showing every edit made by Ciz to this article from the beginning through to Dec.12 2004 (apart from 1 minor correction).

  1. Removed entire major section of researched and consensus material ("zoophilia as lifestyle"), replaced by one sentence "Bestiality is when a human forces an animal to have sexual intercourse." [25]
  2. Removed 8 sources including 2 abuse databases and 2 academic reearch sources, leaving only 3 anti-zoophile sources intact. [26]
  3. Removed entire "books" section, including 2 by zoophiles and 2 by academics [27]
  4. Added related article sexual perversion [28]
  5. Deleted reference to women's author nancy Friday under "extent of occurance" (Nancy Friday wrote 2 books which included information on zoophile fantasy amongst women) [29]
  6. Removed Art links and all links to other language wiki's [30]
    Article reverted (ContiE)
  7. Replaced all references to "Zoophilia" with "bestiality" and refrences to "zoosexuality" to reference to "sexual abuse of animals" [31]
    Article reverted (Diberri)
  8. Replaced numerous sentences and consensus sourced sections by POV versions, eg (1) Psychological research on zoophile personality was deleted, and reported attitudes from academic research, such as "An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common..." edited to read "A perveted fetish for animals. Normal examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common...", (2) Added "This is because they are less complex intelligently, and are easier to have sexual intercourse with. Hurting the animal is not their concern.", (3) Added "even though most religions state its a sin, they spend too much time persecuting gays to go after them", and (4) added in numerous places hanging clauses along the lines of "like pedophilia is for children". [32]
    Article reverted (Hadal)
  9. Repeated above deletions and edits [33]
  10. Redeleted all books [34]
    Article reverted (Hadal)
  11. Repeated above deletions and edits [35]
  12. Removed heading so negative legal opinion became part of article introduction [36]
  13. Redeletion of above links including other language wikis [37]
    Article reverted (ContiE)
  14. redeleted all books [38]
    Article reverted (Hadal)
    Article +vprot (Schneelocke, Oct.28)
    Article unprotected Nov.18 (Quadell)
  15. To the sentence "Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as zoosexuality" added "even though no dictionary recognises such a word." Also added weasel qualifiers "the majority of the public believes bestiality is abusive" in two places. [39]
  16. To the sentence "the term bestiality is the actual dictionary term" adds weasel qualifier "and the term most people use". [40]
    Article reverted (Schneelocke)
    Article +vprot (Schneelocke, Nov.20)
    Article unprotected Dec.3 (ContiE)
  17. Repeated three edits removed prior to locking [41]
  18. Added irrelevant detail "Some porn features women stepping on animals while wearing high-heeled shoes". [42]
  19. Deleted complete section of sourced research of zoophile psychological profile information, and a comment from research regarding social isolation, replacing both sourced researches by a signed comment Stop linking homosexuality to bestiality. --Ciz 18:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) [43]
  20. To a summary of clinical information on zoophilia and violence that "there is little evidence that more zoophiles are abusive per se than any other sexual orientation", added weasel qualifier "unless you believe having sex with animals is abusive in itself, as most do" [44]
    Ciz 24 hour ban (Schneelocke, Dec.9)

[edit] Extracts of posts to Talk page

[edit] Mis-citing of policies

[edit] Personal attacks

On PMC

It's not so much comparing gays to zoos as it is comparing the belief. "...similar to the way that homosexuals feel..." The article is comparing the feeling of gender gap to species gap, as many zoophiles have expressed that particular opinion. Once again, we're noting it, not advocating it. [PMC]
Its people like you that let conservatives use the argument of saying gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality. [Ciz]
No ad hominem attacks, please! Attack my point if you must, but not me. [PMC]

Talk Archive 2

[edit] Personal attacks on sysop Schneelocke and other furs

Ciz responds to editors who discuss the article and seek to show both sides neutrally, by accusing them of having sex with animals, "furtively" supporting bestialists, and the like.

Schneelocke:

(1)

Shnee, do you think bestiality is ok? --Ciz 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does such a question really matter to this discussion at all? And please, don't start a new section every time you add to this discussion, it does not make things easier to read --Conti|✉ 17:11, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
It should. The topic is bestiality, isnt it? --Ciz 17:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why that should matter. We are discussing the content of the article about zoophilia. What difference would it make if one would think it is ok? And why have you removed a part my signature? I hope that was just a mistake. --Conti|✉ 17:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ciz's question was obviously not an innocent one. He was deliberately insinuating that Schnee is a zoophile, which has no relevancy to the article in the least.

Archive 4


[edit] Personal attack on FinalGamer

(1) Added this comment to User:FinalGamers home page - "He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual." [45] (since reverted).

Ciz added this to FinalGamer's home page after FG made his one and only appearance in the Zoophilia talk discussion to add "Look, guys and girls. We try to make this topic neutral, and we try hard. I may be a new user compared to most of you. But I will say this. Love exists in many forms. I have heard a mixture of good stories of love between human and animal, and tragic tales of trauma and rape. If the animal is not harmed or damaged or traumatised, I don't see a problem. Love and honesty are two things animals can give in spades." [46]


(2) FG's quote above continued by describing how he saw some terminology definitions. Ciz repeatedly added that entire quote to this section. As the matter to hand is about Ciz libelling FG's talk page, not on Ciz disagreeing with FG's understanding of terminology, this was reverted, with a note to Ciz NOT to edit matters "above the line". Regardless, Ciz added it back ...

  • Here [47] ...
  • And again [48] ...
  • And again [49] (including vandalistic deletion of the entire rest of the arbitration evidence page too)
  • And again [50]

[edit] Personal avoidance of attacks on Sonic the Hedgehog

Ciz recently posted a level 2 heading Sonic on Talk:Zoophilia [51]. In fact Ciz has made exactly one post to Sonic the Hedgehog, which was to remove the category "Furry" from the article. [52].

==Sonic==
And as for Sonic the Hedgehog; the Sonic series is not related to furries at all --Ciz 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It will doubtless be a relief to many innocent children that Sonic the Hedgehog is in fact not being accused of being a furry. However it is unconfirmed whether he has a 100x100 pixel avatar of a cartoon wolf with a penis, which would indicate he was a zoophile.

[edit] Deletion of others comments

[edit] Previous measures (bans, locks, RFC, mediation)

Summary only - evidence elsewhere in this page.

  • Prior to Oct.28 - Apparently banned (date unknown, see [53])
  • Oct.28 - Article +vprot after multiple vandalism in 24 hour period
  • Oct.28 - VIP
  • Nov.02 - RFC
  • Nov.03 - RfM
  • Nov.20 - Article +vprot within 48 hours of unlocking
  • Nov.25 - Mediator reports that attempts to mediate have failed
  • Dec.09 - 24 hour ban after yet more vandalism within 6 days of unlocking
  • Dec.10 - Talk page vote re arbitration (support 9, against 0)

[edit] General disinterest in (or inability to work with) wiki philosophy

[edit] Other vandalism

[edit] Content related issues

Note: Ciz has added many highly POV items to this Wikipedia article. As article content is not within the remit of the Arbitration Committtee, these have ben ignored other than where a policy has been breached. However some of these are so strongly worded as to be evidence supportive of the general statement that Ciz does not understand the prupose of Wikipedia, nor has shown interest or comprehension of the fundamental nature of neutrality, and this is supportive of the case for a blanket ban. For this reason a few sample edits have been cited to show editing style, even when no policy was breached other than neutrality policy.

[edit] Contributions to Wikipedia

As at 13:00, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC), Ciz has contributed to the Zoophilia item under two anon IPs and one name.

Since his first post was under an anon IP and only later he used a nick, it seems likely that he was new to Wikipedia at that time, otherwise he would have either had other contributions under that IP, or have understood and set up a sock puppet sooner.

In total, these 3 accounts have contributed 212 posts between Oct.28 and the present time (Dec.12), of which all bar 16 (92%) are related to Zoophilia or "furrys" (Ciz states that furries are prima facie zoophiles LINK), and 3 of those 16 are trivial vandalism.

  Zoophilia   21 posts   See #List of posts to article for vandalism
  Talk:Zoophilia   156 posts    
  RFC, RfM, or this page re Zoophilia   14 posts    
  Remove "furry" from article   1 post   Sonic the Hedgehog
  Remove "furry" from article, add "most people believe" assertion about sexuality rumors   2 posts   Miles "Tails" Prower (another Sega character)
  User slander re furry/zoophilia   2 posts   User:FinalGamer
  Change subject's name to "Corey Lynch", later reverted (improperly formatted) [54]   3 posts   Adolph Hitler
  Other   13 posts   9: Steven King books, 3: comics, 1: other

[edit] Other

[edit] Previous attempts to explain or complain

"No, Ciz, the subject of this article is not bestiality, not matter what you may think. Without being an advocate on either side, this may help explain why you are confused: <snip> ... This article is one that provides a range of information concerning affection, affinity, attraction or sexual contact, and is used by those seeking to understand and learn in a neutral sense, what is known of these things. What it is most definitely not, is a forum for your (or anyone elses) personal POV, or for you to misrepresent, throw 'red herrings', or actually edit other users contributions to change what they have plainly said."

FT2 19:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) Talk:Zoophilia/Archive4


You keep on saying I'm 'spamming.' I have made several points, none of which you have replied to. --Ciz? 22:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I say it. At least 2 other users say it. 2 sysops say it. And 3 pages of ranting that attribute fictional incorrect sources to my quotes which had sources named, and smear others, say it. Don't. FT2 22:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
All of whom are furries who defend zoophilia. And Im going by the sources listed on the zoophilia entry. [Bold in original] --Ciz? 03:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WHAT are you talking about? I am not a furry: where did you get that idea? My guess is that you've simply run out of arguments and are now expanding on your previous attacks. (Next thing you know, I'll not only be a furry zoophile, I'll be a furry zoophile who's going in for for trans-species surgery.) Come back with new rhetoric, please. PMC 03:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Zoophilia/Archive4


"This guy has been breaking just about every rule we have here on Wikipedia. POV nonsense is just the start — he's gone through insulting other editors, vandalizing their comments with his BOLDFACE SHOUTING, even bordering on libel and defamation a couple of times. (Look it up, Ciz, if you're going to go throwing accusations of notorious, infamous criminal conduct around, you'd better read up on libel law eventually.) This behavior has got to stop."

FOo 05:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Same talk page


"And yes. Showing full NPOV information on a topic is okay. That is what Wikipedia is for. You've been asked to understand that now, more than a few times and by more than a few people. Lets try once more: You will read points of view in wikipedia that do not support your own ideas, and provided they are sourced information and not personal stances, that is as it should be. To give you examples, there will be posts in Wiki describing how to commit suicide, even if one does not believe in euthenasia. There will be posts in Wikipedia pointing out the positive aspects of gays, even if one is a homophobe. There will be information regarding Blood Sports and Abortion, even if one is vehemently anti hunting or pro life. Do you finally understand what Wikipedia and NPOV is about, Ciz?"

FT2 20:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) Same talk page


"Ciz, I'd like to kindly ask to switch to a more civilized style of discussion. Please read Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Talk Etiquette FAQ and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, and be advised that continued abuse and ignorance of these policies may lead to you being blocked or banned. Furthermore, I'd like to ask you to not insert your own comments into other people's comments ... For more information, please refer to Wikipedia:Talk page. Also, I'd like you to try to read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia does not have an opinion on or judge *ANYTHING*, and this certainly includes zoophilia. If you have specific complaints about the article (i.e., if you feel that parts of it are opinionated, factually inaccurate etc.), then please state on this talk page exactly which parts you think this applies to and why. Be as specific as possible; that is, don't say "this section is POV" or "the entire article is POV" or other such things, but rather point to the exact statements made in the article that you think are problematic. Thank you."

Schneelocke 21:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Talk:Zoophilia/Archive5


"Ciz: Please listen. One of the very basest principles of Wikipedia is that it must remain impartial. NPOV. It cannot take sides. Regardless of what zoophilia is, Wikipedia must remain neutral. 'Zoophilia' is used here because it is an existing, sensible, well-used (check online dictionaries) and neutral term. Bestiality, while it may well be entirely accurate, is not."

Kizor 07:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) same talk page


"It is not an article on bestiality or animal abuse, whatever you may wish it to be, any more than a post on gayness, gay sociology, gay law and gay psychology is a post about anal sex. I'd like you to learn to deal with neutrality, Ciz, because its a sine qua non for Wikipedia, and patience with your inability to handle Wiki-quette or NPOV is fast running out."

FT2 16:24, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) same talk page


"Please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Personal attacks (like "sicko") are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please accept that and stop making personal attacks of any kind. Thank you."

Conti|✉ 23:03, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) same talk page

[edit] Responses to previous attempts to explain

  • Some are. Some arent. All the zoophiles I've seen on the internet were furries as well. --Ciz? 19:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Talk:Zoophilia/Archive4
  • It is not ad-homein. The entry is comparing the plight of how gays are ostracised to what 'zoos' go through. Not only is this offensive, it is true that many arguements against gay marriage include the slippery slope to bestiality. --Ciz 22:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) ArbCom request page

[edit] Supporters and comments FOR the ban

[edit] Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban

Ciz - post here. Not anywhere else. 3rd or 4th time now FT2 23:52, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Moved (dripping with irony) from "Vandalism of this ArbCom request":

Um... no. The "Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban" header is still there. I never removed it. "The Harmful Effects of Bestiality" is one of the topics in the "Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban" section. --Ciz 11:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Um... yes you did remove it. See the link in the "Vandalism of this ArbCom" section, where it shows the changes of one of your edits: removing that header, and adding a bunch of quotes criticising the article. It's right there in black and yellow. The header has since been put back. If you'd stop messing around with the rest of this page (as you've been asked so many times), you'd be less likely to incriminate yourself with other bad edits of it. JAQ 12:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Ciz is welcome to post in this section. Posts anywhere else will be moved here)
Why? THen it wont make sense if its not next to the text it was replied to. --Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, anyone who is doing this should read the whole discussion on the talk forum ,not just the comments copied here before they make their decision.--Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you seem confused about what this page is, I'll try to explain: This is a page where FT2 (and anybody interested in helping) is compiling a complaint about your behavior, which he intends to submit to the Arbitration Committee. It's his page, so he gets to set the "rules" for it. People who support the complaint are welcome to add comments in the appropriate section. People who disagree with it (such as you) are welcome to add comments in this section... not about zoophilia/bestiality/whatever or about the article, but about the complaint. Hint: the more calm and on-topic, the better. This page isn't here for a debate or a discussion. When it gets submitted to ArbCom, I'm sure they will look over all the relevant information, and you'll have an opportunity to respond to specific points. JAQ 00:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THe term 'zoophilia' is biased in itself. The correct term is bestiality. Terms like zoosexuality are not recognised in the dictionary. The terms were coined to make bestiality more acceptable, just like the term childlove was coined by the pedophile movement. --Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My comments are in usually in bold so people wont get my text mixed up with another's.--Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My accusations on if someone is a zoo or a furrie are valid. Its important to know if someone who is defending bestiality does it himself. Zetawoof is a self-acclaimed zoo. Schnee is a furrie. I have also seen sexual drawings of him on the internet as a wolf leashed. There was also a simplistic drawing drawn by him of a wolf with a penis. Conti is a furrie according to her profile. --Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bestiality is illegal and is animal abuse. Animals can not speak for themselves and lack the intelligence needed to consent. Advocating bestiality in any form is wrong and dangerous. To compare it to homosexuality is offensive. Two adults of the same sex have the same intelligence of two adults of the opposite sex. Animals are lower in intelligence than humans are, so a man and an animal can never be equal. --Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And as for me not adding anything else; to quote JAQ "this is a sock puppet account. You don't expect me to touch topics like this with my regular account, do you?" If the mod checks my ip address, they'll see another account with contributions. I dont want it to be associated with the bestiality discussion. --Ciz 23:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? Sonic was categorized as part of the 'furry' category, which he in fact has nothing to do with and is not related to the character. --Ciz 11:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from elsewhere - no Ciz, you post in THIS section)

[edit] and for the most part been well run in a civil manner??

In article which requires some delicacy due to strong views, and has for the most part been well run in a civil manner Really? What other Wikis say about bestiality.

Let's get one thing straight. Zoophilia does not fit under the rubric of "two consenting adults," since one of the parties involved is an animal. Whether or not an animal is even capable of consent is another question. So if we're going to talk about moral equivalence IMHO it's more analogous to pedophilia or so-called "child love" than to homosexuality, since there are serious questions about consent and there is certainly not the same balance.

'Zoosexuallity' doesn't exist in any dictionary or encyclopedia, it was fabricated and nonsensical. Also, I wonder why a 15 year old minor is involved with a bestiality page here??? What is the legality of "PMC" whose profile says she is 15 years old being involved with editing this particular subject here or getting involved with zoosexuality enough she knows all the terminology and 'community'??

Her profile says 'I'm a 15-year-old high school kid with

I should remind you that bestiality is a crime in all of Canada, do your parents know of your involvement with this?

Read the article for a laugh, am leaving sickened. Stop raping animals guys, forget about the spiritual aspects, what about the rights of the animal. Disgraceful. Ã?”ã?¿ç®± 04:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those were all the comments that spoke out against bestiality. --Ciz 18:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The similiarity of arguments used for bestiality and pedophilia

<sarcasm>A bit like how there shouldn't be articles discussing "Abortion", "Gay" or "Capitalism" because these arent real words, they were invented by baby killers, homosexual paedophilic predators and greedy ruthless social parasites respectively, to sound more attractive? Good job we have people to spot these imaginary words in the dictionary :P</sarcasm FT2 16:24, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) in response to comments saying that 'zoophilia' was a term coined to make bestiality more acceptable

Why not afterwards go and substitue every time the word homosexual come up with something like "people who want to use ass for sex". And than communist for "red flag waving totalitarians". There are words like "boylover" and "girllover" whether you like it or not Beta m 11:02, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC) in response to comments saying that the term that 'childlove' was coined to make pedophilia more acceptable. I advise everyone to check out the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Childlove_movement forum to see how similiar the two arguments are. --Ciz 14:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, please keep in mind that the purpose of this page is solely to document the dispute between you and the other editors of the Zoophilia page... not to argue about the topic itself. If this matter goes to arbitration, what they'll be deciding on is not whether your arguments were correct, but whether or not your conduct was appropriate. JAQ 23:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The harmful effects of bestiality

Documenting the harm caused to the animal. You state pretty clearly that you believe that a human having sex with an animal is comparable to child molestation, that it is abuse and harmful to the animal. The harm caused by child molestation is very well-documented; specifically, we have molestation survivors who describe their suffering, and psychological research into the nature of this suffering. There are an awful lot of animal-psychologists in the world; surely someone has done some research on the harm caused to bestiality survivors (that is, the animals). One, the aftereffects are only half of it. It is illegal to have sex with children because THEY ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO FULLY CONSENT. Now, do you believe an animal is more intelligent than a child, let alone an adult? NO. Would it be ok if I had sex with someone who was mentally retarded, if the person didnt mind? That being said: First of all, our body anatomy is too large for the animals. Whether you're sticking your penis in the animal's vagina or anus, its too big. Bestiality has caused internal damage to animals. It has also torn the vagina for animals.

Two :http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 "A veterinary examination later showed injury to the dog and that the animal appeared to be frightened, Henry said."

http://www.humaneconcepts.com/"small animals often experience torn rectums and internal bleeding after being sexually assaulted" "It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible. Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other" "On June 2, when John and Kandi Bever went to feed their pregnant Arabian mare, Kyss, they discovered the horse laying on her side in distress. Nearby was a pack of cigarettes and bootprints that later turned out to match Rachwal's. A veterinarian determined that Kyss was in shock from severe penetration injuries to the anal and vaginal areas....Kandi Bever reports that although Kyss' injuries are healing and she is doing wonderfully, the mare was clearly affected psychologically by the assault. The foal appears to be in good health but whether or not Kyss will be able to give birth normally is still unknown."

"Many animal sexual abusers fit the profile of pedophiles,"says Kim Roberts, manager of The HSUS's First Strike? campaign, which focuses on the link between animal cruelty and human violence. "They may defend their actions by stating their victims' consent, but obviously no child or animal is capable of consenting to sexual activity with an adult. And unfortunately, these victims have no way of calling attention to their pain."As Roberts notes, children who sexually abuse animals may be victims of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse themselves, perpetuating the cycle."

While the blunt assertions you've posted above are not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, perhaps your strong views could lead you to do some real research for this article rather than just repeating yourself over and over in the talk page. I've done plenty of research. You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.

(Incidentally, you mention in passing above that you were "banned". Did you mean that you were banned from Wikipeida? If you were and still are, then your posting here may well be a criminal offense, since you are accessing a computer system without authorization. Wikipedia bans apply to individuals, not to usernames.) ?FOo 06:07 Bestiality is a much serious criminal offense, yet you furtively support it. Furthermore, the moderator stated, "Im not gonna reply to it; if you (Ciz) want to discuss this, please do so here." Anyway, Im not banned anymore --Ciz 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and factual corrections related to above

  1. The comment quoted by Ciz "While the blunt assertions you've posted above are not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, perhaps your strong views could lead you to do some real research for this article rather than just repeating yourself over and over in the talk page." was originally made by FOo 06:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) [55]
    Ciz response and personal attack: "I've done plenty of research. You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals." 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) [56]
  2. The comment quoted by Ciz "Did you mean that you were banned from Wikipeida? If you were and still are, then your posting here may well be a criminal offense, since you are accessing a computer system without authorization. Wikipedia bans apply to individuals, not to usernames." was originally made by FOo 06:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) [57]
    Ciz responses and personal attack: (1) "Bestiality is a much serious criminal offense, yet you furtively support it." (2) "Anyway Im not banned anymore" 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) [58]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/t/2/User%7EFT2_Arbitration_re_Ciz_4374.html"