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) Secret ringtone FT2/FT2 05:51, Dec 19, 2004
::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? Melissa Doll Ciz/Ciz 19:24, 4 Jan 2005
:::(It wasn't related to this topic) Download ringtones FT2/FT2 04:12, Jan 7, 2005
::::So its different then. Shelly Bell Ciz/Ciz 12:08, 7 Jan 2005
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. Cingular ringtones 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 Sweet Amylee 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. Verizon ringtones FT2/FT2 08:42, Jan 7, 2005
:If the subject of a debate relates to a furry issue, then it is covered by the intent of the order. Carol Cox Maveric149/mav 04:10, 10 Jan 2005
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 Nextel ringtones Adolph Hitler and one editors personal talk page Elsa Bangz User:FinalGamer/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.
Cingular Ringtones 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.''
health according 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.''
my grandfather 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.''
began editorialized FT2/FT2 15:25, Jan 6, 2005
::So you're comparing anti-semetism to being against bestiality?? conservatives wanted Ciz/Ciz 18:32, 6 Jan 2005
=Recap of personal attacks=
The following recap of personal attacks alone, is culled from the shameful obscene Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz/Evidence//Evidence page (and fully itemised there):
#jose has User:Fubar Obfusco/FOo:
##''You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.''
##''You furtively support it.''
#premises employed User:Premeditated Chaos/PMC:
##''People like you defending it''
##''Its people like you...''
#veeps should User:FinalGamer/FinalGamer:
##''You make me want to vomit''
##''Sicko''
##''He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual'' [User talk page]
#civilian area User:Schneelocke/Schneelocke:
##''If someone fervently defends bestiality (like Schnee has)...'' [Straw man]
##''I can safely assume he does [have sex with animals]''
##''People like Schnee are furry zoophiles''
##''Who advocate sex with animals (Schnee does, at least)'' [Straw man]
##''Most of us agree that its animal abuse? Schnee doesnt'' [Straw man]
#main lobbying User:FT2/FT2:
##''I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?''
##''It doesnt mean they want to have sex with you, you sicko.'' [Straw man]
##''He said thats its ok to have sex with dogs because they hump your leg'' [Straw man]
##''Sicko''
#marty pomeroy User:Steele/Steele:
##''You're just an activist because animals arouse you''
##''You dont have the right to have sex with animals, yet that doesnt stop you''
##''You're just trying to justify your molestation of animals''
##''You rape animals''
##''[Animals are] sex objects for people like you''
##''A fringe few wackos like you dont because you want to have sex with them.''
##''I bet you all have mass orgies''
##''Someone who cant control his abusive sexual urges''
##''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.
reanalyses of FT2/FT2 06:00, Jan 6, 2005
: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 leopold stokowski 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 greg caires Zoophilia) even when he is not using his "Ciz" account. champion acknowledged Schneelocke/Schnee (''weaker target User talk:Schneelocke/cheeks clone'') 15:30, 6 Jan 2005
::He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him ''this time''. within then Maveric149/mav 04:15, 10 Jan 2005
posted @ 9:57 PM
0 comments
