Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ciz

message: 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)
thread_title: Prevention from editing Zoophilia

message: The following recap of personal attacks alone, is culled from the /Evidence page (and fully itemised there):
#FOo:
##You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.
##You furtively support it.
#PMC:
##People like you defending it
##Its people like you...
#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]
#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]
#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
#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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recap of personal attacks

message: * Accept for modification of scope and enforcement Fred Bauder 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * '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)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/1/1/0)