Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ciz

Worth considering as part of the decision?

I came across this post recently. I think its a good comment and may be worth affirming in some form in the arbiters decision, insofar as (1) it will doubtless arise again and will be good to have as a principle, and (2) part of Ciz' personal attacks and activities involved exactly this:

"Since when do we do FBI background checks on Wikipedians? If you have a complaint about [any person's] behavior and judgement [], make it. If you don't, then what does this have to do with anything? Obviously, I'm butting into a conversation that doesn't directly concern me. But, as a Wikipedian, the principle does concern me. And I will extremely vigorously oppose any witchunt based on somebody's history, actions, or beliefs outside of Wikipedia."

(Link available for crediting this to author if required) FT2 05:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

So, first you want me to back up my claims with evidence and now you don't?

And I'd like to see this post in context; was the stuff being found relevant to the debated topic, or was someone just trying to make the other person look bad with something non-related involving him? --Ciz 19:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(It wasn't related to this topic) FT2 04:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

So its different then. --Ciz 12:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prevention from editing Zoophilia

I would like to ask for the following wording within this proposed decision:

...prevented indefinitely from editing zoophilia or furry related articles, including their talk pages ... or making any edits related to these subjects in other pages.

My reason being, Ciz' advocacy against bestiality and POV edits against zoophilia and furry has taken place in various articles, not just "closely related" articles, and this will prevent similar POV editing elsewhere in future. Homosexuality in animals is not a "closely" related article to Zoophilia, but Ciz edited it to suit his POV, and that edit was motivated by its mention of inter-species sex in animals and to discredit information relating to unusual animal sexuality. Similarly, FinalGamer's talk page is not "related" or even an "article", but it was used to attack the same subject there, and Sonic the Hedgehog is arguably not a "furry" page. However what is not in doubt in each case, is that the edit by Ciz was related to furry, bestiality or zoophilia. FT2 08:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

If the subject of a debate relates to a furry issue, then it is covered by the intent of the order. --mav 04:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request

Although previous cases are not binding, it would be appreciated if the Arbcom would reconcile the proposed decision they are currently drafting, with principles from other cases currently or recently heard.

I would have thought a significant ban would be appropriate beyond mere removal from this one topic, bearing in mind the sheer virulence and persistence of attack, the level and number of complaints received, the evidenced tolerance of editors, the scale of policy breaches persistently evidenced, that in addition to "Zoophilia", at least one article Adolph Hitler and one editors personal talk page FinalGamer has also been attacked, and that not one but several other editors have been directly attacked with accusations of having sex with animals, or advocating having sex with animals.

For these reasons, some reconsideration of the proposed decisions being drafted, would be helpful.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed_decision (Current)

• "Wikipedia users are required to avoid personal attacks."
  • This should be stronger, however. Change "expected" to "required"?
  • I'm with James — we ban people for personal attacks
  • Required
• "Wikipedia editors may not revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period"
• "Users who modify other user's edits of arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will be heavily penalized."
  • Not just Arbitartion pages, either.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kenneth_Alan/Proposed_decision (Oct 2004)

• "User Kenneth Alan appears to be unable to conform his behavior to a number of Wikipedia policies, including avoiding personal attacks, avoiding inserting original research into articles, avoiding systemic point of view violations and avoiding violations of Wikipedia etiquette."
  • ...It is obvious, though, that Kenneth's attacks have been widespread and frequently personal. The other violations ... are likewise widespread in spite of frequent warnings.
• "Due to User Kenneth Alan's demonstrated inablility to conform to Wikipedia policies he is banned for one year."
  • I would support a longer ban.
  • Perhaps a little harsh, but not hugely so.
  • I am hesitant to jump immediately to such a long ban, but Kenneth's behavior is egregious enough to warrant serious consequences. I would support a ban of 1-3 months without hesitation ... I reviewed the evidence again and considered the damage done by Kenneth and the vitriol with which he has attacked some editors. Honestly, the more I looked at it, the more I recalled Plautus Satire, whose behavior warranted, as I recall, a 1 year ban. Kenneth deserves the same.
  • I agree wholeheartedly with James' (Jw..g) assessment.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK (Oct 2004)

In which RK was aggressively POV warring, using Wikipedia for advocacy and engaging in serious personal attacks on editors in one article, and yet produced work of good quality in other articles or under other names. (This parallels the statement that Ciz may have produced good work outside Zoophilia using another account)

• "RK has repeatedly, over the course of his long presence here, made a very great number of personal attacks, despite numerous warnings to the contrary."
• "RK has repeatedly and to great degree violated NPOV, inserting POV statements into a variety of articles primarily connected with Judaism and Zionism, including intransigent reverting and edit-warring."
• "Some of RK's work outside of the field of Judaism, most notably in genetics, has been of a high quality."
• Decision:
  • RK is banned from editing the Wikipedia for a period of four months.
  • RK is banned from editing articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for one year. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the admins. (And as is true of all arbcom bans, each time he violates this, the count shall be reset back to one year)
  • RK is encouraged to return after the end of his ban to contribute to areas other than Judaism.

FT2 15:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

So you're comparing anti-semetism to being against bestiality?? --Ciz 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recap of personal attacks

The following recap of personal attacks alone, is culled from the /Evidence page (and fully itemised there):

1. FOo:
   1. You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.
   2. You furtively support it.
2. PMC:
   1. People like you defending it
   2. Its people like you...
3. FinalGamer:
   1. You make me want to vomit
   2. Sicko
   3. He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual [User talk page]
4. Schneelocke:
   1. If someone fervently defends bestiality (like Schnee has)... [Straw man]
   2. I can safely assume he does [have sex with animals]
   3. People like Schnee are furry zoophiles
   4. Who advocate sex with animals (Schnee does, at least) [Straw man]
   5. Most of us agree that its animal abuse? Schnee doesnt [Straw man]
5. FT2:
   1. I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?
   2. It doesnt mean they want to have sex with you, you sicko. [Straw man]
   3. He said thats its ok to have sex with dogs because they hump your leg [Straw man]
   4. Sicko
6. Steele:
   1. You're just an activist because animals arouse you
   2. You dont have the right to have sex with animals, yet that doesnt stop you
   3. You're just trying to justify your molestation of animals
   4. You rape animals
   5. [Animals are] sex objects for people like you
   6. A fringe few wackos like you dont because you want to have sex with them.
   7. I bet you all have mass orgies
   8. Someone who cant control his abusive sexual urges
   9. You cant do it to a dog either, yet that doesnt stop you

In addition there are at least another 20 evidenced instances of modifying others' RFC statements, ArbCom evidence, ArbCom statement of complaint, selectively deleting other editors' talk page comments, as well as numerous evidenced vandalisms.

FT2 06:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

As usual, FT2 is much, much better at summing up our thoughts and providing evidence, links to other cases and so on than I am. That being said, I agree fully with him: while banning Ciz from editing Zoophilia will solve the immediate problem of him vandalising that article, I think there also should be some form of punishment in order to make it clear to him and others that behaviour like this is not accepted on Wikipedia. For that, I'd propose a medium-term ban from making any edits whatsoever to Wikipedia (maybe in the 3 to 6 months range); Ciz has shown that he does not have any respect for Wikipedia's principles and values and for other editors, and I think an actual general (limited-time) ban would be not only justified but also appropriate. For that matter, whether the arbitration committee agrees with the previous or not, I'd also like to propose that any and all other usernames that Ciz is using be made public in order to make it possible to spot edits made by him (to Zoophilia) even when he is not using his "Ciz" account. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time. --mav 04:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User: DrBat -- continuing breaches of previous ArbCom ruling

Involved parties

• DrBat (talk · contribs)

Sockpuppets previously confirmed by ArbCom members:

• ShadowH (talk · contribs)
• Ciz (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes - see statement below.

First time round, RfC and RFM were tried initially, the matter then went to RFArb. Second time round (Nov 2005) he was given a chance to walk away and save face. 2 weeks later (this week) he recommenced the same activities on other articles and was only noticed doing so by chance.

Statement by FT2

(1) OCT - DEC 2004: DrBat initial activity under the sockpuppet "Ciz", and ArbCom ruling

Following an intense POV war campaign on the Zoophilia article and Furry, ArbCom issued an indefinite ban on DrBat (under any name) editing on the subject. His warfare included libellous and vicious personal attacks on any NPOV editors, and complete disregard for every policy related to NPOV and NPA, to the extent that almost every post he made in a 3 month period Oct - Dec 2004 was a documented breach of some (usually significant) Wikipedia policy, including vandalism of ArbCom related matters when the subject was raised there, and the Adolph Hilter article. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz

After RfC and RfM, some 10 editors supported ArbCom referral, 8 of them requesting a wikipedia-wide ban on the basis he would probably not be able to resist continuing POV warfare on other articles that caught his attention this way. ArbCom ruled (Jan 10 2005) as follows:

• Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus. (8-0)
• Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia. (8-0)
• Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there. (6-0)
• Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose. (8-0)
• DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions. (6-0)
• Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.
• "He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time" [Emphasis in original, ArbCom talk] [2]

Ciz ceased editing Zoophilia at that point.

(2) NOV 2005: Ciz returns to POV warfare on Zoophilia under another sockpuppet

On Nov 21 2005 a request "out of the blue" was filed to move the "zoophilia" article to "bestiality", followed by a resumption of the POV warring before. There was no prior talk page discussion attempted.

I asked user:Kelly Martin to check whether ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, which seemed likely. She confirmed that "DrBat and ShadowH are the same person, with a very high degree of certainty" [3] This was the second sock-puppet created specifically for a procedurally abusive purpose.

DrBat's first actions under the "ShadowH" name were 1/ edit an article referencing zoophilia to replace it by "bestiality" [4], 2/ to post a Requested Move to "bestiality" [5] [6], 3/ repost his old allegations that the term "zoophile" is POV and that zoophiles "rape" animals and are like pedophiles [7] [8] [9] (all similar to previous approaches)

In the course of only 6 posts to Talk:Zoophilia DrBat had already shown his intent to continue his previous documented approach from 2004, including:

• An attempt to abuse process (previously he had abused VfD and other processes, this time requested moves)
• Unsourced statements ("More people associate..." [10], "Many view..." [11])
• Weasels ("Some could argue..." [12])
• Personal view as basis for editing ("I find it offensive..." [13], "To associate a group of people enslaved and persecuted for hundreds of years, to a group of people who are unpopular for raping animals, is deeply offensive to me" [14])
• Straw men (A comment that many groups, such as Black Americans, find certain terms POV, was replied by DrBat: "As an African American, I find it offensive to be compared to bestiality" (there was no comparison of people or groups, but only of their views on perceived POV terminology) [15]. A careful re-explanation of this [16] was completely ignored (as in 2004) and replied to with: "So you're comparing the persecution of African Americans to people who believe having sex with animals is abuse" [17])
• "Zoophilia is equivalent to pedophilia" ("And I am sure pedophiles find the term pedophlia insulting and would prefer something more npov such as boylove instead?" [18]. In fact the article uses the term zoophilia for the same reason as pedophilia; both are the appropriate clinical terms)

After confirmation by Kelly Martin that ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, I considered how to handle it. Wikipedia philosophy/ArbCom precedent does not believe a person incapable of change, even Willie on Wheels, and in its previous decision ArbCom imposed a minimum ruling to prevent DrBat vandalizing on the subject of zoophilia, despite his heavy POV warfare and personal attacks. I felt the spirit of Wikipedia would be better served if he would simply leave the article and subject of his own accord. So instead of escalation, I simply posted a note on the talk page to ShadowH on Nov 23 saying I suspected he was DrBat and to either state he was not, or cease editing on the subject matter. ShadowH ceased editing Zoophilia the same day.

I was satisfied that a situation had been defuzed the simplest way. Explanation to Kelly Martin why I was not approaching AER or RFArb *this time* [19], Post to "ShadowH" on article talk page [20], posts archived in Talk:Zoophilia/Archive15.

(3) DEC 2005: DrBat recommences deletion and POV change of zoophilia references in other articles

Just two weeks after the above, on Dec 5, DrBat began POV warring on zoophilia yet again, this time in other articles. He edited without consensus the South Park article "recurring themes" section, to delete the fully sourced and cited section discussing zoophilia as a recurrent theme. [21]. This is in addition to his edit of Savage Love on Nov 9 [22] as ShadowH changing "zoophilia" to "bestiality" (c.f. text of his Requested Move).

(4) UPDATE

...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [23]

(5) Fairness and neutrality:

When not editing on the subject of zoophilia and furry, DrBat makes valuable contributions to many other articles.

SUMMARY:

AER doesn't seem relevant as DrBat is a habitual sockpuppet user, and it was only by chance his POV activites of December were noticed, since they affected another article. He has now vandalised or POV edited 4 or 5 (rather than just 1 or 2) other articles in total, as well as the zoophilia and other furry articles. It seems a decision on handling is needed, not just enforcement of an existing ruling.

His 2004 warfare was given a second chance by ArbCom, by removing him from the one subject only ("Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time"). His November 2005 actions through another sock-puppet in breach of the ArbCom ruling, were given a second chance by myself, to walk away without escalation and save face. Having been given a chance so recently, I feel that in continuing to vandalize other articles this way, DrBat has now reached the point that I have to pass this one back to ArbCom to decide how to handle it.

FT2 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated ruling - exact nature of request:

The problem is that the previous ruling only refered to a ban on editing "zoophilia and its closely related articles" and not a ban on "edits related to zoophilia or animal sexuality in general". As it stands, it is hard to argue (for example) that South Park is a "closely related article" to the zoophilia article, although his section deletion is clearly due to a similar motive. Nor is Savage Love "closely related", although his edit is clearly from the same motive. So there is doubt whether the previous ruling applies to these edits, even though there is obviously a common cause. He has also previously taken this POV agenda to WP:AFD and other articles such as Non-human animal sexuality in the past.

So this does little to reflect that he is editing the identical arguments into other non-closely related articles, whose editors are probably unaware of his history, and that this is repeatedly done through sock-puppets. The previous ruling stated "for now", implying review if needed, and as it stands does not effectively prevent these kinds of edits. Hence the request for review of the previous ruling, to request a wider scope of prohibition or other action in light of recent events:

• Scope of ban:

• Old - "...prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages."
• Requested new - "...prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, human-animal relationships, and related subjects in any article, including their talk pages."
• Effect - prevents posting POV edits or terminology changes on the subject (or closely-related subjects) to other unrelated articles. [Note that DrBat uses word-play a lot, hence a list of the exact subjects is given.]

• Enforcement powers:

• Old - "...any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block [DrBat] for up to 24 hours."
• Requested new - "...any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block DrBat (under whatever name he may be using) for increasing periods of up to [maximum time] upon repeated non-compliance."
• Effect - appropriate useful enforcement powers given continuing POV warfare. (A maximum ban limit for repeated violation of 2 months is requested, as a balance between "getting the message across" and not inhibiting future positive contributions.)

With a change of this kind, it is then possible to enforce action against the above type of edits. At present it is not. FT2 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by DrBat

1)The request was to move zoophilia to bestiality, which most people associate the term with. No changes to the article were made, and it was put to a vote.
2)South Park does not have bestiality as a recurring theme, and South Park itself is not connected to bestiality. Almost all of the stuff seemed taken out of context. If you asked Trey and Matt, they would probably also say bestiality is not a recurring theme in the show. Furthermore, the question on if it was relevant was put into talk when I removed the bit. No one else has commented on it or reverted it until you came. If actual SP fans didn't feel it was meant to be in the article, and they left it alone, I don't see how it would be vandalism. Do you even watch the show?

UPDATE

...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [24]

The above "2)" still applies. --DrBat 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

3)On 'Savage Love' the term bestiality was already mentioned and linked at the top of the page. Hence my removal of the link when it was mentioned further down the page in relation to the Santorum controversy.--DrBat 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
4)"As it stands, it is hard to argue (for example) that South Park is a "closely related article" to the zoophilia article, although his section deletion is clearly due to a similar motive.

It is not a recurring theme. None of the other SP editors have a problem with it being taken out(you're the only one who has). A question was put on the talk page asking if anyone thought it was relevant, and no one replied. If it truly was a recurring theme, someone would have protested.

Nor is Savage Love "closely related", although his edit is clearly from the same motive.

The term "bestiality" was mentioned earlier in the article (and not put there by me, btw). And its what Savage refers to it as.

So there is doubt whether the previous ruling applies to these edits, even though there is obviously a common cause. He has also previously taken this POV agenda to WP:AFD and other articles such as Non-human animal sexuality in the past.

POV? All I have posted in that article were facts and quotes (such as the zoo director on the aforementioned liger). I don't think anything I've contributed to that article was irrelevant to the topic, or POV. --DrBat 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

5) FT2 recently posted this on his talk page [25]:
zoophilia - because he has claimed and stated "Zoophilia is like pedophilia, and a POV term
bestiality - because he claims bestiality is an accurate term which he is merely correcting.

Call it a weasel comment, but it seems that most of the sites I've seen that use the term "zoophilia" as opposed to "bestiality" are sites that support it. Furthermore, most of the articles on wikipedia did use the term "bestiality" before Schneelocke (someone who is in support of it) went on this massive crusade on 9/2/04, changing all the articles that mentioned "bestiality" to "zoophilia". [26]

animal sexuality - because he has views whether animals have this or that sexual outlook, which contradicts certain other authorities evidence and is basically a personal opinion, and he has edited this into other articles or may do so.

What did I post on the animal sexuality article that wasnt true? What? A quote from the zoo director on the liger in their zoo isn't relevant now?

human-animal relationships - because the south park edit was not so much a del;etion of an article on bestiality or zoophilia, but merely a deletion of a section discussing the presence of human-animal relationships as a theme'

Except it isn't a theme. Most of those events were taken out of context of the episodes they appeared in, or were misleading in the way they are represented (ie it mentioned the scene where Stan is masturbating to his dog as an example; in the actual episode the younger kids had been tricked by the older kids into thinking it was the same as milking a cow because they didn't know anything about sex; hence the adults thinking they should be taught sexual education earlier than usual. ect ect). When it was removed, no one cared except for you. It was put into the talk page if it should be there; no one cared. Because its not a recurring theme in the show; if it was one of the SP contributors would have done something by now. --DrBat 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/1/1/0)

• Accept for modification of scope and enforcement Fred Bauder 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept if the rest of the Committee feel that it is necessary to formally re-open the case to modify. James F. (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject — there's no doubt that he's in violation of our previous ban, so use the remedies specified: block him for rapidly lengthening periods ➥the Epopt 06:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• 'Accept: It has been brought to my attention (thanks, FT2) that our previous ban does not specifically cover this situation, so I'm reversing myself. There is no doubt that he's in violation of our previous ban, so we should summarily provide clear remedies for his flouting of our ruling. ➥the Epopt 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reject. Agree with The Epopt Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided. I don't understand how this fails to fall within the scope of our prior order. Perhaps this should be brought as a summary motion to expand scope instead of a full hearing? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(I have commented on the above points at the end of the statement, to specify exactly what is sought and why. Note that both scope and enforcement were extremely limited: the previous ruling did not in fact cover "rapidly lengthening periods," for example. It allowed bans of a maximum 24 hours only. Hence as Fred Bauder states, this is a request for enhanced scope and enforcement in light of recent edits. FT2 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC))