Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on December 17, 2004
Case Closed on January 10, 2005
Decision Amended 15:51, January 26, 2006
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] The parties
Complaint by User:FT2 against User:Ciz requesting a temporary injunction.
[edit] Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words
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, personal attacks, and ranting.
Ciz is also: 24.61.31.36 and 66.30.122.120
Votes for referral (with request for full wikipedia ban):
- FT2
- Schneelocke
- Fubar Obfusco ("FOo")
- Premeditated Chaos
- Paranoid
- Zetawoof
- JAQ
- GRider
Votes for referral (view on wikipedia ban not known or against):
- Sillydragon (view on ban not known)
- ContiE (wants ArbCom to decide what action is appropriate)
Votes against referral:
- (None)
Notes:
- Votes for referral do not count views expressed for removal of Ciz on other pages.
- There is further evidence being complied, mostly of Ciz' actions and personal attacks on the talk page. Due to the volume of posts many of Ciz' posts have not in fact been documented. We believe the above is certainly complete as it stands for a decision to accept or recuse, and probably for a decision to be made as well.
- Last - please check history of main evidence page and this request prior to review. Ciz has a track record of vandalising complaints against him.
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 some time ago 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 27-0 keep, 4 votes to delete Ciz), and continued to vandalise the article and also the provisional ArbCom evidence page and others evidence sections on multiple occasions despite many directions to desist.
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.
He also clearly shows that despite many many reminders and requests, he is uninterested in complying with such a simple request as the ArCom /Evidence hearder statement to place his evidence in his section, and refrain from editing others posts. This statement is made not once, but twice (once in bold) in the /Evidence header, and has been added to by many other people, as well as being listed as a complaint.
Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that a total and very 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 long term ban at least from this article, and other tangential or related pages and issues.
I also ask for findings clearing other editors of inappropriate misconduct, particularly sysop Schneelocke and myself. Ciz has made many personal attacks, against pretty much every other editor. I would like findings that other than specific named cases (if any), Ciz has failed to produce evidence of the degree needed to demonstrate the significant misconduct he alleges or to justify his personal attacks, and accordingly his accusations are deemed without merit, that these people have in fact acted reasonably and with due restraint in their many attempts to explain and help Ciz understand, and that (other than as deemed by the Arbitration Committee) those accused by Ciz are cleared of any accusations by Ciz for abuse of admin powers, inappropriate POV editing, etc. (Added Dec.29) (Many of the users on the debate seemed bias in support of bestiality, with some being furries. Only one of those users stated she was playing devil's advocate and did think it was abusive, while the other users ignored the question on their views on the topic, and in fact have come to the defense of bestiality --Ciz 12:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) ).
(The original details, evidence and supporting links are still visible at User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz, but are for the most part superseded by the evidence presented)
- This request posted by: FT2 21:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC). Minor wording modifications and additional request added FT2 18:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by affected party
Please limit your statement to 500 words
One, I wonder how neutral FT2 is on this subject. He compared usage of the term bestiality instead of zoophilia to (these are his words) <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) .
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. I doubt that. One, as I said earlier I have another account (with several contributions) that I didnt use because I dont want it to be associated with this bestiality debate. Two, I feel very strongly about this subject because I believe it to be animal abuse and I do not like how the article on it is noticably slanted in favor of it. Unless I got involved with the Childlove article (which I do not plan on doing; this topic is disturbing and draining enough) I cannot see myself getting as riled up somewhere else as I am here.--Ciz 18:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)
- I am willing to accept, as attempts at dispute resolution have proved so fruitless
that mediation would be an obvious waste of energy and time. Sorry, I missed that mediation had already been attempted without success -- wholehearted support, then. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) - Accept, and recommend a temp injunction while under consideration [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt
of the Cabal]] 22:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) - Accept. Agree with Epopt. →Raul654 19:23, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Fred Bauder 19:47, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- I will remain recused in this case - due to past mediation work -- sannse (talk) 00:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 05:43, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction
Pending resolution of this matter User:Ciz is banned from any Wikipedia pages other than his or her user pages and pages relating to this arbitration.
- Pased 6 to 1 and enacted on 6 January 2005
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] No personal attacks
1) No personal attacks.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Disruption
2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Controversial changes
3) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Second accounts
4) Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] Controversial edits
1) Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Personal attacks
2) Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Lack of discussion
3) Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there.
- Passed 6-0.
[edit] Ciz is a secondary account
4) Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics [1]. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Ciz/DrBat's good contributions
5) DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions.
- Passed 6-0.
[edit] Remedies
[edit] Prevention from editing Zoophilia
1) Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.
Passed 7-1.
The Arbitration Committee amended this item to read as follows by open motion adopted 15:51, January 26, 2006. Motion adopted 9-0.
1) Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
[edit] Attack parole
2) Ciz (using whatever account) is placed on standard personal attack parole indefinitely. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Good behaviour
3)If Ciz can demonstrate at a later date willingness to discuss and accept consensus without resorting to personal attacks, then Ciz may apply to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.
- Passed 8-0.
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Attempts to edit Zoophilia
1) If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, its closely related pages, or their talk pages, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block Ciz for up to 24 hours. :Passed 8-0.
The Arbitration Committee amended this item to read as follows by open motion adopted 15:51, January 26, 2006. Motion adopted 9-0.
1) If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
