Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by FT2

Note - Ciz has added additional stuff, made comments and the like in this section. He has been asked more times than I can count not to (JAQ also refers). As requested by the header above I have left it untouched but in green. Please move to "Evidence presented by Ciz". Thanks.

Please check the history of this page before reading, to be sure any late modifications and comments to others evidence by Ciz' are highlighted, as many quotes in it are not as entered any more. Thanks. FT2 23:22, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Other note: Many of the talk page and user contributions links in my evidence appear to have stopped working somewhere between 20 - 29 Dec. See Bugzilla ref. 1228. Links were mis-linking due to a change in how URLs were translated. Now believed fixed.

Introduction

Vandalism and attacks to date include:

"Vandalism in progress", RFC, mediation, two 24 hour sysop bans, two (now three) 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.

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

The latest attacks subsequent to his last ban and notification of ArbCom referral were a VfD listing, and mass deletion of information from both the article [2] and the draft Arbitration evidence page prior to acceptance [3] on Dec.16-17.

General posts and posts relating to main article Zoophilia

Almost all Ciz' posts have been vandalistic or at best extremely POV. So this is Ciz' entire history of edits to the article body (bar 4 minor edits) to 16 Dec, plus posts as relevant from elsewhere.

October 2004

Oct. 2004 - Banned. Precise date unknown, see [4] "I got banned because my statement was not neutral..."
Oct.28 - 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." [5]
Oct.28 - Removed 8 sources including 2 abuse databases and 2 academic reearch sources, leaving intact only 3 anti-zoophile sources. [6]
Oct.28 - Removed entire "books" section, including 2 by zoophiles and 2 by academics [7]
Oct.28 - Added related article "sexual perversion" [8]
Oct.28 - 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) [9]
Oct.28 - Removed Art links and all links to other language wiki's [10]
Oct.28 - Article reverted (ContiE)
Oct.28 - Replaced all references to "Zoophilia" with "bestiality" and references to "zoosexuality" to reference to "sexual abuse of animals" [11]
Oct.28 - Article reverted (Diberri)
Oct.28 - Replaced numerous sentences and consensus sourced sections by POV versions, [12] 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".

Oct.28 - Article reverted (Hadal)
Oct.28 - Repeated above deletions and edits [13]
Oct.28 - Redeleted all books [14]
Oct.28 - Article reverted (Hadal)
Oct.28 - Repeated above deletions and edits [15]
Oct.28 - Removed heading so negative legal opinion became part of article introduction [16]
Oct.28 - Redeletion of above links including other language wikis [17]
Oct.28 - Article reverted (ContiE)
Oct.28 - Redeleted all books [18]
Oct.28 - Article reverted (Hadal)

Oct.28 - Article +vprot (Schneelocke)

Oct.28 - VIP reported (Schneelocke) as 66.30.122.120 link

November 2004

Nov.02 - RFC posted [19]
Nov.2 - Vandalised RFC [20]
Ciz' response 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 contributors and sysops in this manner elsewhere though (see "personal attacks")

Nov.2 - Ciz vandalism of RFC removed by sysop [21]

Nov.03 - Request for mediation Original post [22] Archived discussion RfM/Archive12
Nov.9 - Ciz is reluctant to engage in mediation until told the mediator will withdraw if he does not. "I can't continue asking this question if you won't answer it: are you willing to participate in mediation? At this point, if you do not specifically say that you will in your next message, I will understand that to mean that you do not wish to do so." [23]

Nov.7-13 - Mediator has posted at least 5 requests on Ciz' talk page to engage in mediation.

Nov.8 - "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" [24].

Nov.13 - Final post: "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". [[25]

Nov.25 - Mediator formally reports failure of mediation

Mediation never in fact got underway. "If problems continue, you may want to consider arbitration" (sannse) [26]

Nov.18 - Article unprotected (Quadell)
Nov.19 - 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. [27]
Nov.19 - To the sentence "the term bestiality is the actual dictionary term" adds weasel qualifier "and the term most people use". [28]
Nov.20 - Article reverted and +vprot (48 hours after -prot) (Schneelocke)

Nov.25 - Mediation reported failed, see above (sannse)

December 2004

Dec.3 - Article unprotected (ContiE)
Dec.9 - Repeated three edits removed prior to locking [29]
Dec.9 - Added irrelevant detail "Some porn features women stepping on animals while wearing high-heeled shoes". [30]
Dec.9 - Deleted the entirety of zoophile psychological profile information (cited from sourced academic research), 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) [31]
Dec.9 - 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" [32]
Dec.9 - 24 hour ban (Schneelocke)
Dec.9 - Talk page vote re arbitration (for 10, against 0). [33]. Text as follows:
"Within minutes of adding academic mainstream material to the article Ciz's responses have been:
Delete/revert [34]

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
([35] "unless you believe having sex with animals is abusive in itself, as most do")
I am inclined to take the matter of Ciz to the Arbitration Committee, with the request they order that Ciz will be banned ... Please vote below ..."
Dec.9 - Removed all the evidence links, and citations, from the above vote. This included the complete deletion of point 5 in toto. [36]
Dec.10 - Vote result: for 10, against 0. Majority consensus: stronger (full) ban to be requested:
"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) ... This guy, at least under the Ciz account, literally does nothing on Wikipedia other than fight about zoophilia. Therefore, I concur (FOo) ... 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 (PMC) ... There is simply no reason to pretent that Ciz is anything more than a persistant vandal (Paranoid) ... This nonsense has gone on way too long (Zetawoof) ... seems unwilling to edit constructively and unable to understand - let alone tolerate - other POVs (JAQ) ... Please ban User:Ciz immediately. I have zero tolerance for vandalism and wasteful appointments to VfD (GRider, here, following Ciz post on VfD)"
Dec.15 - 6 further posts of a similar kind including template NPOV (Note: article was already marked as "some items may be disputed"), subtle edits to shade the meaning of "Zoosadism", and his usual form of edits such as: "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..." [37]
Dec.15-16 Reverted (Zetawoof, Neutrality)
Dec.15 - VfD posted page link Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zoophilia
Reason for VfD (in full): "This page blatantly promotes bestiality ("zoophilia") and uses fake words like 'zoosexual'." [38]

Result of VfD: keep 27, delete 0, also ban or watch Ciz 4.

Comments relevant to WP:DP include: "A very thorough article. Seems fairly NPOV to me" (Satori) ... "Keep, notable" (Wyss) ... "Perfect case for reject and de-list" (GRider) ... "Just another abuse of this wiki by a chronic POV-pusher" (JAQ) ... "does cover the many objections as well as the views of the proponents" (iMeowbot) ... "Certainly seems like a good, thorough, well-researched article that is reasonably NPOV" (Dpbsmith) ... "Keep, obviously" (Neutrality) ... "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) ... "Extreme keep, this is hilarious" (RaD Man)

(Note, some contributors also discussed review or copyedits - not relevant to VfD)
Dec.16 - Repeated above edits, adding these edits back again under the title "The topic is for arguments against zoophilia" [39]
Dec.16 - Deleted an "on the other hand" side of an argument leaving only the side against zoophilia in the article [40]
Dec.16 - Reverted (Premeditated Chaos)
Dec.16 - Deleted American Psychiatric Association (APA) view of zoophilia and its classification in their Diagnostic and Statistical manual [41]
Dec.16 - Reverted (ZetaWoof)
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" [42]
Dec.16 - Reverted (JAQ)
Dec.17 - Added Category:Abuse [43]
Dec.17 - Deleted link to non sexual animal site in-memory-of-pets.com as "not relevant" although cited in article as a good example of non sexual zoophilia. [44]
Dec.17 - Category reverted (ContiE)
Dec.17 - Added tag "NPOV" (Note, article was already by consensus tagged with template {Controversial3} "some items have reached consensus, some may be disputed" [45]
Dec.17 - Reverted (FT2)

Dec.17 - Article +vprot (Schneelocke)

Dec.18 - De-listed early from VfD (Vacuum) [46] "consensus is overwhelmingly on the keep side"

Posts related to talk pages

A significant proportion of Ciz' posts to talk pages are either extreme POV, unsourced weasels, or personal attacks. Specifically almost all of Ciz' posts to talk pages (other than minor corrections) contain at least some, usually more than one, of the following elements:

Personal attack, with or without veiled or overt accusation of zoophilia ("if you support this article then...")
Zoophilia is pedophilia, all zoophiles are like pedophiles, etc
All zoophilia is inherently abusive
The title of article should be bestiality, zoophilia is a name made up by zoophiles who are like boylovers, etc
The article is biased or POV because it doesnt attack zoophiles, article should be against zoophiles, etc
Diatribes against the evils of bestiality/zoophilia
Attacks on furries and accusations of being closet bestialists
Vandalism and editing of others comments
Weasel terms
Straw men

October 2004 (T)

Oct.29 - [47]
- Deletion of existing comments
- Personal attack on PMC:
  - PMC: "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."
    - Ciz: Its people like you that let conservatives use the argument of saying gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality.
- Other:
  - Ciz: only pedophiles use the term boylover and only bestials use the term zoophilia ... the page on Naziism speaks negatively of it ... I did add the negative aspect of it, I got banned because my statement was not neutral ... So I can have sex with a child as long as its ok with me doing it? ... Both bestials and pedophilies use the same reasoning ... [Response: Out of context much? --Ciz 03:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
Oct.29 - [48]
- Long rant copypasted from anti-zoo website
- Personal attack on FOo:
  - FOo: "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."
    - Ciz: I've done plenty of research. You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.
- Personal attack (2) on FOo:
  - FOo: "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."
    - Ciz: Bestiality is a much serious criminal offense, yet you furtively support it
Oct.29 - [49]
- Reasserted personal attack on PMC:
  - PMC: "No ad hominem attacks, please! Attack my point if you must, but not me." (PMC)
    - Ciz: Its the truth. Conservatives use the argument that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to legalized bestiality.
- "Straw man":
  - Ciz: Im allowed to preach about the wonders of having sexual intercourse with my pet, yet if I say its abusive I get removed
- Other:
  - Ciz: only pedophiles use the term boylover and only bestials use the term zoophilia ... And nonetheless, the term [zoophilia] is invalid ...
  - In response to request to use NPOV: You could say the same for pedophiles. Oops, I mean boylovers ...
Oct.29 - [50]
- Personal attack on Foo:
  - FOo (analysing Ciz' POV issues): "You say, 'Whether you're sticking your penis in the animal's vagina or anus, its too big.' This of course depends on what kind of animal we are talking about..." (FOo) [Response: This is exactly the type of stuff I am talking about.--Ciz 03:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
    - Ciz: You're making me sick. How old are you?
- Other:
  - Ciz: Zoophilia was a term created by bestials to make it more acceptable, just like boylover was created by pedophiles ... Any body who has sex with their pet is abusing them ... Anyone who has sex with an animal is an animal abuser ...
Oct.30 - [51]
- Straw man:
  - Ciz: Sources? Are you referring to such sites as zoophilia.net? Dont make me laugh.
    In fact the point being discussed was the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle section", whose sources are 100% verified academic, and had been discussed and consensus reached previously. Ciz deliberately cited an external link unconnected with the material to hand as the "source", ignoring the previous talk page discussion, thus "proving" the material wasn't valid.
- Personal attack on FT2:
  FT2: "It's worth remembering that even on contentious issues, individuals personal feelings on topics are not the way to decide if it is valid information and are not a deciding factor for what belongs in some article. Mysteronald's stated reason for adding the tag are that the material is general, not that its inaccurate or unsourced. Vote: removal of tag, inappropriate"
  - Ciz: Do you support bestiality as well?
    (Given context this was not an idle question, but a loaded accusation. Ciz has used this line to try and win arguments before ... "if you dont side with me you must have sex with animals" logic. See other examples in this evidence.) [Response: You can simply say if you support it or not. Its not that hard. I like to know what the other person's stance is on the topic being discussed. --Ciz 03:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
- Personal attack (2) on FT2:
  - Ciz: The entry 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' was ... submitted by a POV contributor ... The fact that people (and this site) would support such disgusting abuse of animals is horrible ...
This refers to my sole contribution prior to Ciz' arrival (Oct 28), in July 2004. In fact there was no "POV contributor" nor "support of abuse". This was sourced academic research to balance the lack of academic info in the article. POV issues were fully reviewed and sources given, with no ultimate discenting voices as to its neutrality:
pir: "Please give a credible source for the extraordinary claims made in the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle" section" (Jul.20) [52]
FT2: (Evidence sourced, see here) (Jul.21)
Paranoid: "Thanks for the information and references, FT2. Since it turns out that the list in question is actually based on research, not just someone's opinion, there seems to be no reason to remove that information" (Jul.21) [53]

The next substantial comment was many weeks later, by Mysteronald (Sep.6), commenting that the title of the section needed review.[54].
There was no further suggestion made that the research or any edit was POV, nor does the talk page or history indicate any user or viewpoint which was presented in accordance with Wikiquette has been excluded.
Oct.31 - [55]
- Other:
  - Ciz: All I know is that you have you an entry showing bestiality in a positive light
Oct.31 - [56]
Response to attempt to explain NPOV and how it works on wikipedia:
- Personal attack on FT2:
  FT2: "I am going to suggest we revert the page to how it was before your recent edits, and that if you then have any contributions, they can be discussed here one by one. I also think you need to read and understand the points made in the original discussion page, so we don't rehash them again, and that you understand why these were by and large felt to be appropriate discussions where yours were not"
  - Ciz: You're disgusting. I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?
- Straw man & personal attack (2) on FT2:
  - Ciz: It doesnt mean they want to have sex with you, you sicko.
    (In fact FT2 had at no time stated this was the case, yet another straw man + personal attack)
- Another straw man:
  - FT2: "This is neutrally verifiable, and sources and examples are available for each of these. These include substantial academic research, animal welfare and other books, anecdotal evidence and photographs. This is what is meant by sourced information"
    Ciz: Neutrally verifiable? One, do any of those sources support having sex with your pet ... Second, most of the sources listed were pro-bestiality ...
    (again selectively claiming external links as sources that he knew were not at all source material for any of the comments cited. The sources were not zoophilic as Ciz claimed, but academic, as discussed)
Oct.31 - [57]
- Straw man, misrepresentation of user statement and more personal attacks against FT2, weasel, etc etc:
  PMC: "He's not defending anything, he's refuting your point with actual research. If you perhaps had some actual neutral points to share, I would listen to you, as would the rest of us. But you don't, and not only that, you can't even argue without resorting to personal attacks. Why would you think we'd want to even speak with you when all you can do is rant? Come back when you can argue your point like a rational person." (PMC)
  - Ciz: He said thats its ok to have sex with dogs because they hump your leg. WTF?! [Untrue]
    Also, most people would agree with me that anyone who thinks its ok to have sex with animals is not rational at all.
Oct.28 - [58] (repeats assertions about bestiality)
Oct.29 - [59] (repeats assertions about bestiality and homosexuality)

November 2004 (T)

Nov.1 - [60]
- Personal attack and straw man against PMC
  - Ciz: There were people who believed that advocating animal sex was disgusting, people like you defending it ... You didnt convince anyone of your cause ...
    (Note: straw man, PMC was not "defending" any advocacy and no "cause" existed in the first place)
    FOo comment: "By the way, you've really got to quit assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is into this whole boinking-their-pets hobby..."
Nov.1 - [61]
- Deleted middle of a comment by ContiE. (There is no chance of a "mistake"; the snip is a precise sentence, the middle of 3 in a post)
Nov.1 - [62]
- Commencement of personal attack against sysop Schneelocke, a furry who has been involved in locking down the article against Ciz' vandalism 3 days before.
  - Ciz: Shnee, do you think bestiality is ok?
Nov.1 - [63]
- Commencement of attack on furrys in general and continuation of attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: And I do have to wonder, because Schnee is a furrie (even though not all furries molest animals) Furthermore, when another zoophile said concerning the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle" topic, "I'm a zoo, and I don't have any particular issues with the page content. So I'm removing the NPOV tag. Everyone fine with this?" Schnee said he was ok. Then, when someone said, "Stop raping animals guys, forget about the spiritual aspects, what about the rights of the animal. Disgraceful." Schnee told the person to 'stop flaming. (and this is all true. right there one the first talk page. --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))
  - Ciz: And Schnee- do you think its ok? You havent answered the question
Nov.1 - [64]
- Continuation of personal attack against FT2, who has tried to explain NPOV in depth:
  - Ciz: And FT2; you were the person who submitted the 'Lifestyle' topic?? (it said so in history. I asked him to confirm it. --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) [response: Yes. Wikipedia is neutral. Which means we add stuff if it is sourced, verifiable and meets wiki policies. You were told numerous times to look up the talk page where it was discussed and a consensus reached that it was verified, see above. All attempts to explain were met by personal attacks, straw men, or restatement of extreme POV]
- Other:
  - Ciz: "Just as pedophiles have used the term 'boylove' since 'pedophilia' has "very negative connotations" bestials use the term 'zoophilia' because 'bestiality' has "very negative connotations..."
Nov.1 - [65]
- Personal attack/investigation into Schneelocke's furry persona:
  - Ciz: Ok. I googled "schneelocke." I am seriously disturbed. There's this bsmd-ish picture of a humanoid fox on a leash. WTF? And the person who drew it has her own site which contains drawings of humanoid animals in sexual poses. [66].
    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://werewolf.schneelocke.net/~schnee/images/gifts/schnee_badge2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.livejournal.com/users/schnee/129387.html&h=591&w=800&sz=80&tbnid=El-2c0BzofAJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=140&start=11&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Schneelocke%2522%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN [shows a 100x100 pixel cartoon style avatar of a downcast looking anthro-wolf on a chain, waist up, non porn]
    Then you're signed up on http://www.fur.com/wfire/home/ where you describe yourself as an 'arctic wolf slave'.
  - Ciz: Do you have sex w/animals or not?
Nov.1 - [67]
- Personal attack on ContiE (another fur):
  ContiE: "WTF indeed. What the heck are you doing here? Do you try to win the argument through "exposing" how perverted or whatever the others are..? To save you some work with further research: I'm Gay, I'm Furry and I'm into BDSM. Oh, and you asked for my age once, I'm 19. So fucking what? It is really hard to take you seriously at all as long as you show such a behaviour." (ContiE)
  - Ciz: Do you have sex with animals? If you dont, I could care less
Nov.1 - [68]
- Assumption of zoophilia FT2 trying to explain yet again to Ciz why editors consider him out of order:
  FT2: "Your response to the effort to keep NPOV is, 'I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?' "
  - Ciz: If someone defends the sexual abuse of animals (like this entry does) I assume they do.
- Assumption about furs:
  - Ciz: there are a lot of furries who support zoophilia.
- Personal attack escalation and straw man attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: if someone fervently defends bestiality (like Schnee has) and then he turns out to be a furrie
    (Schneelocke has in fact not "fervently" defended anything except wikiquette and WP:NPOV) (that is a load of bull. anyone can check out his arguments on the talk page. he's defended more than just wikiquette or npov --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) [Reponse: They can indeed. Be sure of it. See /Evidence below]
Nov.2 - [69]
- Weasel words:
  - Ciz: Most people agree with me in saying bestiality is animal abuse
- Failure to get the idea STILL:
  - Ciz: Both bestials and zoophiles engage in sexual intercourse with animals.
- And here comes the straw man again!
  - Ciz: the sources themselves (Dearest Pet, Zoophilia.net, ect) are PRO-BESTIALITY [These are NOT the sources]
- And yet more anti-fur personal attacks:
  - Ciz: Schnee is a furrie who defends bestiality. It doesnt take a genius to figure out whats going on
    Ciz: I can safely assume he does [have sex with animals]
- Attack escalation on furrys in general:
  - Ciz: "You keep on saying I'm 'spamming.' I have made several points, none of which you have replied to"
    FT2: "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."
    Ciz: All of whom are furries who defend zoophilia.
Nov.2 - [70]
- Deleted entire 1st half of Talk page
- Mis-represented sources again (actually as pointed out ad nauseum these are not sources but external links) saying:
  - Ciz: Sources listed on the main page [are <list>] ... most of which are made by zoophiles
    Despite not being "sources", and despite being selected by Ciz to make a point, even so 2 of the 4 are autobiographies of zoophiles, 1 is a non sexual book on love of animals, and 1 is academic research.
Nov.2 - [71]
- Outright libel of sysop Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: People like Schnee are furry zoophiles. His profile states he's an 'Arctic Wolf' furrie and his livejournal account says he's a zoophile [Latter assertion untrue] (I guess someone hacked into his account then. --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))
Nov.2 - [72]
- Assumptions again:
  - Ciz: if you defend the molestation of animals as several users here have ...
    [implication/justification obvious, ellipsis in original]
Nov.2 - [73]
- Personal attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: You can deny the truth all you want. Anyone who googles your name can see the type of stuff you're into
- Response to comments made in RFC, including libellous personal attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: Most people will agree in saying any sexual behavior related with an animal is sexual abuse. Most people will also agree that the correct term is bestiality, and not zoophilia.
  - RFC: "..ranting, name calling (including 2 sysops and straw man)"
    Ciz: Who advocate sex with animals (Schnee does, at least) [Latter assertion appears untrue]
  - RFC: "Discussion not making progress."
    Ciz: You mean, me [sic: not] agreeing with you in that showing bestiality is positive light is ok?
Nov.2 - [74]
- And the furry obsession again:
  - Ciz: All the zoophiles I've seen on the internet were furries as well.
Nov.2 - [75]
- PMC: "Hey, look, it's a talking parrot! Oh wait, it's only Ciz, repeating the same argument one more time."
  Ciz: So you acknowledge it?
- Attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: deny it all you want. Your journal, your erotic drawings of wolf-men, and your advocation of bestiality in this forum leads me to believe otherwise.
  - Ciz: Schnee gets his jollies off of wolf-men in bondage (This is all true. --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))
Nov.3 - [76]
- Yet another attack on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: Most of us agree that its animal abuse? Schnee doesnt. He changed the word bestiality to zoophilia because bestiality had 'negative connotations' (among other things). [Left to sysop Schneelocke to refute this personal attack] [Response: Nope. In Schnee's own words; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zoophilia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0 17:15, 5 Sep 2003 Schneelocke (Add some minor bits of info, and do some NPOV editing (bestiality -> zoophilia, since bestiality is a term with very negative connotations)) --Ciz 12:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [Responded to below, in brief this was a consistency edit long ago, from when the bestiality article was merged into zoophilia link]
Nov.3 - [77]
- Accusation of bias:
  - Kizor: "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."
    Ciz: It is not a neutral term. It was created by bestials to make it more acceptable to the public
    (Incorrect: As stated in the article, "zoophilia" was introduced into the academic field by Krafft-Ebing in 1894. Academic books and papers with "zoophilia" in their titles are cited in the article from the 1960's)
Nov.3 - [78]
- Yet another attack on "most" furries:
  - Ciz (to PMC): I said you were in the minority, for defending zoophilia yet not being a furrie
- Other:
  - Ciz: I guess I should have read How to give your dog a blowjob without your dad walking in [underline in original] when I had the chance, huh? Having sex with animals will always be abuse, no matter how you slice it. Thinking otherwise proves your own ignorance.
Nov.4 - [79]
- Personal attack on Schneelocke:
  - PMC: "technically with all you've said without actual evidence, Schee has every right to sue you for libel, if he cared to"
    Ciz: That would be like a man who defended NAMBLA suing someone for calling him a pedophile.
Nov.4 - [80]
- Yet more information digging on Schneelocke:
  - Ciz: Also, check out one of his avatars. image
    (a 100x100 pixel furry-cartoon style avatar of a male cartoon wolf with a zero-detail cartoon sexual organ, titled "Naked!") (an avatar of a wolf with a penis --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC))
Nov.4 - [81]
- Schneelocke:
  - FT2: "yes. All together now. Schnee is a furry. Some furrys like anthro art, some of which is sexual. Sexual anthro art is common, legal and irelevant. This is a rather undetailed icon of a wolf in a sexual pose. Big flipping "so bloody what".
    Ciz: You can see the wolf's cock! o_O
- Other:
  - Ciz: I've accused people who defended bestiality of doing it.
  - Ciz: If someone argues that animals can consent to sex and that a dog humping your leg is a sign he wants to you-know-what makes me wonder what's going on.
  - Ciz: So, would you care if I looked at child porn? What if your father did?
    PMC: "I would be very concerned for your mental health, however it has no bearing on the substance pedophilia article whatsoever. Whether or not Schnee (or, in fact, anyone, because you've accused pretty much all of us of boinking our pets at some point) is a zoophile is not relevant to the content of this article. I don't care what you think, it is completely irrelevant."
Nov.4 - (more details in separate section below)
- Ciz near libellous vandalism of FinalGamer's home page:
  - Finalgamer makes his one and only appearance in the article, trying to build a shared bridge of understanding (a "shared bridge of understanding"? --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)). [Response: Read FG's post neutrally, placed in the context of Ciz' attacks on the editors and on furries, I believe bridge building is a fair description. He stated that he could see both sides, and quoted a commonly believed definition of terminology, in an attempt to explain to Ciz why the subject was not just about sex with animals][Response: No, he just spouted the common rhetoric zoos use of how 'if its rape, its bestiality and if its love its zoophilia.--Ciz 00:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [See #Personal attack on FinalGamer on his user page for rebuttal]
  - Ciz adds to Finalgamer's home page:
    He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual. [82] (later reverted)
Nov.4 - [83]
- Ciz attacking Finalgamer on talk page:
  - Ciz: You make me want to vomit (after he outright said it was ok to have sex with animals under certain circumstances --Ciz 22:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)) [Response: Untrue. No [Ciz interjection] He said, IF it were to cause no harm or trauma, THEN in principle he was unaware of a good argument against it] ([His [FG's] words: "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. Zoophilia was a term invented to separate those who LOVE animals, from those who RAPE animals (the bestialists), as far as I can tell. So, it comes to the conclusion of the motives of the human. If it is selfishness, intent of harm, and so forth, then it's bestiality. If it's love, intent to care, and no intention to harm, then it's zoophilia." Its ok to have sex with animals if you love them. Thats what he said. ASAIRS argument applies so much to what he said, its scary. "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. Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications." --Ciz 00:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Ciz: The boylovers *cough*pedophiles*cough* use the same argument. There are pedophiles who genuinely believe that having sex with children is ok if its love. The same argument applies to you; I dont care if you think you love them. Having sex with animals will be animal abuse no matter what you think about them while you're sticking your dick into its hole.
  - Ciz: Sicko.

... Thats Nov. 1 - 4 reviewed. Let me know if I need to document any more. Theres the same again twice over if so.

December 2004 (T)

... I haven't tried to document Ciz in December. Same stuff new month.

Other evidence

Vandalism of Adolph Hitler

Oct 26 - vandalised Adolph Hitler (later reverted) [84]

Ranting

See talk:Zoophilia, and note the dates on the archives 1 - 11. The entire talk page up to Archive 1 was verything pre-Ciz. The others are all Ciz.
See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zoophilia for rant on that page.

Vandalism of Arbitration vote

Dec.9 - As noted above, Ciz removed evidence and citations from a talk page vote on ArbCom referral on Talk:Zoophilia, including complete deletion of the last point in toto. [85]

Interspersion of comments

Ciz has ben asked many times not to do this. The first request was in October. On Nov.2, sysop Schneelocke posted as follows: [86]

"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 [emphasis extra]; the proper way to respond to someone is like this:

<snip>

"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."

As noted in the evidence page, even this simple request has been impossible for Ciz to understand and comply. He continues to do it on the article talk page, and multiple times on the proposed arbitration evidence page. As JAQ points out in his evidence, this is despite being asked by multiple users to stop:

Example: [87] "Ciz - your comments go to 'Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban' and nowhere else. I have moved your comments, and will continue to do so" (PMC)
4 further incidents are listed below, under #Vandalism of User:FT2 (Arbitration_re_Ciz).

Ciz still continues (despite two requests in the /Evidence header and numerous reminders by other editors) to post his comments in (and in some cases modifying) "Evidence by FT2" and "Evidence by JAQ" on this page. (Left untouched as requested by this page's header)....

Dec.19 - here... [88] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.21 - and again... [89] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.21 - and again... [90] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.21 - and again... [91] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.21 - and again... [92] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.21 - and again... [93] (ArbCom /Evidence page, posted after JAQ wrote about this same subject below)
Dec.21 - and again... [94] get the hint will you Ciz? Chrissakes, you can read can't you....?
(this comment also ignored)
Dec.21 - and again... [95] (article talk page)
Dec.22 - etc ... [96] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.23 - etc ... [97] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.24 - etc ... [98] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.26 - etc ... [99] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.26 - etc ... [100] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.28 - etc ... [101] (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Dec.31 - etc ... [102] of (ArbCom /Evidence page)
Ciz adds a huge collection of utterly irrelevant comments by Steele to "Evidence by FT2"

Vandalism of User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz

Page used for provisional Arbitration Evidence

Dec.13 - Vandalised the draft ArbCom evidence page to remove the header "Disagreement and views AGAINST the ban", replacing it by his own previously added header "The harmful effects of bestiality".[103]
- Note - Ciz has deleted headings before to give an extreme POV impression. The deletion of a header from a section removes their POV identification, as with this incorporation of the entire legal section (tending towards "anti-zoophile") as part of the article introduction: [104]. He was also told numerous times by various users not to edit the page except where allowed.
- And denied 2 days later: "The ... header is still there. I never removed it." [105]
Dec.14-16 - Added remainder of quote by user:Finalgamer which described how FG saw some terminology definitions. As the matter to hand is about Ciz libelling FG, not on Ciz disagreeing with FG on terminology definitions, this was reverted, with a note to Ciz NOT to edit matters "above the line". Regardless, Ciz added it back ...
1. Here [106] ...
2. And again [107] ...
3. And again [108] (including vandalistic deletion of the entire rest of the arbitration evidence page too)
4. And again [109]

In discussing this article, it was mentioned to me that animals regularly have sex outside their own species, and research on homosexuality in animals was no longer fringe. So I looked this up, found some information, thought it was curious and interesting, and added it to the article Homosexuality in animals as a small section #Cross species sex. I thought little more, but I notice on my watchlist today that Ciz has been at this to, probably because it is linked from Zoophilia as a related article. [110]
In fact there is no visible consensus to support his assertion, that I have seen, and knowing Ciz the impression I get is that this is not so much "sourced neutral information" as yet another POV-pushing exercise.
- Update: Another post which also seems at first to be neutral information, but carries the same "feel" of POV pushing. Ciz' added that most crossbreeds are sterile. I corrected this to say some usually are, some are not (as witness: [111]). Ciz then re-edited it with a quote from a zookeeper that it was "practically impossible" in the wild. [112]. In fact a key obstacle suggested against cross breeding appears to be that lions and tigers simply occupy different territories. I suspect that this repeated edit to [Homosexuality in animals]] is not in fact due to general interest and a wish to add information to wikipedia, but at heart is POV pushing on an article for the sole reason that it is listed as a 'related article' for Zoophilia.

This is true; most hybrids are sterile. Furthermore, animals will only do that in captivity where they are put together by humans(i.e. zoos). It never happens in the wild. Also linked to the entry are too crude images that are more likely to be seen on a 'joke' site (a dog performing anal sex on a cat, ect). Did you put those there?--Ciz 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal attack on FinalGamer

User:FinalGamer made his one and only appearance in the Zoophilia talk discussion rebutting Ciz, 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. Zoophilia was a term invented to separate those who LOVE animals, from those who RAPE animals (the bestialists), as far as I can tell. So, it comes to the conclusion of the motives of the human. If it is selfishness, intent of harm, and so forth, then it's bestiality. If it's love, intent to care, and no intention to harm, then it's zoophilia" [113] (rest of post irrelevant, discusses terminology use) It is not irrelevant. And if its not a big deal, why do you care so much about removing it? --Ciz 22:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Response: Because terminological discussion is not relevant to libel]
When FinalGamer posted the above to Talk:Zoophilia, Ciz added this comment to FinalGamer's home page -
"He believes a sexual relationship with an animal is ok as long as its consensual." [114] (since reverted).

A personal attack on a users own home page, might be considered in some ways even more serious than an attack in an article talk page, since (a) it is intended and expected to be read independent of any guiding context or article debate which a reader might refer to for understanding, and (b) it will be seen and remarked upon (again with no guiding context) by any user (and many more of them) who might look up, watchlist, or visit that person's talk page for whatever reason.

Personal attacks against Steele

Note: Steele was not himself innocent of personal attacks. Eventually he attacked back at Ciz, however this was long after continuing with reasoned comments in the face of Ciz' sustained initial attacks.

It should also be noted that while Steele has stated he has "zoophile friends" and is clearly aligned to one side of the debate, in fact I cannot find any point where Steele says more than that he is sympathetic to their views. Steele has at no point edited the article, he has restricted himself to addressing Ciz' arguments on the talk page. The majority of his posts there are essentially refutations of poor logic and refutations of personal attacks. He has not stated he is a zoophile, merely that (like Peter Singer who believes in infanticide if the baby is mentally retarded, and whose comments on bestiality have brought condemnations from many Animal Rights groups --Ciz 12:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) </font">) he is an animal activist who does not automatically classify zoophilia as abusive. The allegations by Ciz should be read in that context.

In support of this statement it should be noted that Ciz first attacked Steele on Nov.8, whereas Steele replied with comments such as Nov.8 and again (in which he rebutts a straw man accusation by Ciz), and rejection of yet more personal attacks and straw men Nov.10. Steele accused Ciz (in a reasoned argument) of having nminimal concern for animals On the sole basis of the fact that I do not support bestiality. Steele stated that when the animals are rescued from their owners who are performing sexual acts on them, they go to the pound where they might be put to sleep (which is usually not true; the pound I live nearby will never put animals to sleep unless they have a serious disease that can't be treated) --Ciz 12:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) and of having a strong POV Which would be the ket calling the pottle black --Ciz 12:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC), after asking him several times to follow Wiki policies Nov.11 and pointing out his circularity of argument Nov.13.

Nov.8: [115]
- Ciz: You're just an activist because animals arouse you
Nov.8 (straw man):
- Ciz: You're the one who posted their link. it's your burden to prove they're valid [116]
  Steele: "No actually, I haven’t changed anything in this article nor did I post that link..." [117]
Nov.9:
- Steele: "Pets are like slaves; they are property under legal terms. Just because we care and love for them doesn’t change the law or our there status in society" [118]
  Ciz: So you believe in abolishing pets? Furthermore ... [119]
  Steele: "You are putting words into my mouth." [120]
Nov.13:
- Steele: "Now you are resorting to personal attacks? There you go again, attack other with the “you must have sex with animals” argument. Didn’t the other people here ask you not to do that?" [121]
  Ciz: The other posters havent come out and defended it outright like you have. [122]
  Steele: "That is irrelevant. So what that I have? That doesn’t give you the right to order me to stop or attack me like that." [123]
  Ciz: You dont have the right to have sex with animals, yet that doesnt stop you. [124]
Nov.14: [125] **
- Ciz: You're just trying to justify your molestation of animals
Nov.15: [126] **
- Ciz: Stop acting like you're a poor, persecuted minority. You rape animals
Nov.14: [127] **
- Ciz: As opposed to sex objects for people like you? Almost everyone advocates neutering. A fringe few wackos like you dont because you want to have sex with them.
- Ciz: That doesnt surprise me. I bet you all have mass orgies.
Nov.15:
- Steele: "This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo ... who can’t grasp the concept of having a logical discussion without his personal fears and ignorance controlling him."
  Ciz: As opposed to someone who cant control his abusive sexual urges. [128]
Nov.15: [129] **
- Ciz: You cant do it to a dog either, yet that doesnt stop you.
Nov.20 - Steele calls Ciz "intolerant" and a "hypocrite" [130]

-----------

Comments from Steele

(quotes collected by --Ciz 23:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC))

What difference does it make to the horse if the person is ejaculating them for business or personal gratification? Your point has change from all sex with animals is wrong because they have a lower intelligence too a matter of the persons intentions. So now, what if some guy (even if he thought it was sick) was force/paid to screw a dog? By your own (new) logic, that would be okay because “it’s just business” and he didn’t have sick intentions. Meanwhile, someone else who cares about and loves their non-human partner is wrong for having mutually enjoyable sex.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Steele on the argument that bestiality is wrong because animals cant properly consent (after saying that the pets are equals and such): Animals do not have to have informed consent because that falls within the judgment of the guardian. --Steele

I am justifying bestiality when it is consensual and mutually satisfying relationship.--Steele

People you speak of assume it is wrong because it is so taboo. It is not like the average person would even come to the defense of the Zoo. --Steele

You have yet to ever prove that bestiality is intrinsically abusive. That is of course because you can't. That is why they have to pass bestiality laws, because there is no abuse to prosecute them under in the first place! Animal welfare laws already protect animals from harm but you are advocating more then that.--Steele 19:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isnt that a matter of where you draw the line, the animals know it feels good and maybe that is all the foreknowledge it needs. Oruborus said it a better then I could.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) (this was more on the 'informed consent' argument)

I advocate bestiality? I don't remember saying people should or encouraging anyone. In fact I have a history of discouraging people who seek it as a novelty or dont have the best interest of the animal at heart. I dont advocate bestiality I just dont want people demonizing it, thereby turning the good people I do know into "sexual predators" or monsters.--Steele

Here Steele compares laws against bestiality to slavery. Its not animal abuse, unless you want to change your definition of animal abuse to something that is further encompassing then it should be.--Steele

That depends on whether or not you view molestation to qualify as abuse. --Ciz 04:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not all bestiality is molestation. Again, that isn't intrinsic.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having sex with an animal will always be molestation. --Ciz 00:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that is your personal belief, but if you want to bring it here you actually have to prove it.--Steele 01:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The law says it is. Thats what matters. --Ciz 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Laws recognized slavery and segregation too. The topic isn’t about the law, so no, it does not matter. --Steele

It is hard to confuse the emotions of a happy dog waggin its tail with a dog that mounts you, tries to pull off your clothes or solisits you with its genitalia.--Steele 20:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (on confusing the affection pets show their owners to them wanting to have sex)

I have friends who has been harassed and stalked by these very people and other rabid-anti-zoos. So I am merely bringing the other side of the argument to this encyclopedia.--Steele

I suppose the people at zoophilia.net feel the same way I do about sexual animal abuse. We both see it as wrong and would immediately report it to the authorities. That doesn’t mean that the zoo website endorses asairs black and white view that all animal sex is abusive.--Steele

-------------------------

** (Added to Talk/Archive8 and Talk/Archive9 after archiving)

Removal of Category:Furry from articles

Whilst I am no expert on furs nor on Sega characters, I can understand that anthropomorphic characters such as Sonic the Hedgehog could legitimately be seen as Furry by many. The following edits may therefore be relevant in the light of Ciz' campaign of harrassment of furrys, potentially as evidence that Ciz removes furry references from characters he views positively. No consensus was sought for these edits nor for the repetition of one of them.

Oct.29 - removed Category:Furry from Sonic the Hedgehog [131].
(Reverted Nov.1 [132])
Oct.29 - removed Category:Furry from Miles "Tails" Prower (friend of Sonic) [133].
Dec.14 - removed Category:Furry from Sonic the Hedgehog again[134]

Its a video game. Where you play a hedgehog. Who fights a guy named Eggman. It has nothing to do with the 'furry' community just because the characters are animals. --Ciz 22:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other relevant information (summary of Ciz' activity as a user)

Since his first post was under an anon IP and only later a nick, it seems likely that he was new to Wikipedia, otherwise he would have either had other contributions by IP, or have understood and used a sock puppet sooner. In total, these 3 accounts have contributed 212 posts between commencement (Oct.28) and Dec.12, of which all bar 16 (92%) are related to Zoophilia or "furrys" (Ciz states that furries are prima facie zoophiles several times above). Of the 16 non-zoophile/fur edits, 3 are also trivial vandalism.

Zoophilia	21 posts	See below
Talk:Zoophilia	156 posts
Wikipedia RFC, RfM, or ArbCom pages re Zoophilia	14 posts
Remove "furry" from article [135] (Repeated Dec.14 [136])	1 post	Sonic the Hedgehog
Remove "furry" from article [137]	2 posts	Miles "Tails" Prower (another Sega character)
User slander re furry/zoophilia (see below)	2 posts	User:FinalGamer
Vandalism of subject's name to "Corey Lynch", later reverted (improperly formatted) [138]	3 posts	Adolph Hitler
Other	13 posts	9: Steven King books, 3: comics, 1: other

Response to Ciz comments

(1) Finalgamer:

Read his words. He has not advocated that "sex" is ok. He states a conditional bridge, namely "IF (what one side alleges were correct) THEN X". Although he is clearly sympathetic to a pro-zoophile position he has not attempted advocacy. He merely says, (a) he has heard good and bad stories, (b) IF the statements made by pro-zoophilia advocates are in fact correct THEN he would not see a problem. He does not actually express an opinion on the matter however.

(2) Schneelocke:

His livejournal does not say he is a zoophile [Response: His livejournal lists zoophilia as one of his interests. --Ciz 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [It is evidently one of my "interests" too. Except my "interest" comes from having been asked to help a friend and his family understand if he was in need of therapy or if he was okay, and to stay friends when they found out. [So you have a friend who has sex with animals. And yet you're neutral on this topic. --Ciz 02:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)]</font"> [You really don't get it, do you? After 3 months you still haven't understood not everyone who is a "zoophile" boinks animals, nor is there an implication to that effect. Many people who are classified as zoophiles are non sexual. I found that out by reading the research. You have had the research told you a dozen times, and can't "get" it] [So then what would your friend need therapy for, and how is it related to zoophilia? --Ciz 01:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Sorry, if the ArbCom decide thats relevant, I will tell them. The issue for *this* page is your libellous accusations to furries and other editors, and your vandalism, POV injections and ignoring of wiki policies. Not what a person may or may not have needed who is unconnected with wikipedia] [Then why did you bring it up that you had an interest in zoophilia because of your friend and if he needed help or not? --Ciz 22:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

(3) "People have done a lot more on the talk page...":

Read the talk page. It's been a very very good example of NPOV, that is, sopme people strongly against, some strongly for and a lot just working to make a good neutral summary, consensus formed quite well, present POV company excluded. [Response: I posted all the 'against' comments in the previous arbitration forum. The people who posted those comments havent returned, leaving only the pro-zoo people. Hence the reason why there was the consensus; there were no opposing views (this has changed recently when the recent Deletion topic was posted, alterting some people to the entry) --Ciz 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [Inaccurate, there have been many opposing views, but they have for the most part been rational ones. An example is discussed above, #October 2004 (Talk page) item 5 "Other", the academic research which was my sole contribution prior to Ciz' arrival]

(4) "Zoophilia meant someone who loved animals":

Untrue. Multiple references, cited in article, from 1960's onward, and 1st use in this context in 1894. Ciz also claims (incorrectly) that "zoophile" and zoosexual were words "made up by bestialists to look good". [Response: zoosexual is not a word (at least not recognised by any dictionary). And zoophilia did not always mean sexual/erotic attraction to animals. --Ciz 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [No evidence of claim] [Response: Zoophilia used to mean 'Affection or affinity for animals.' Nothing about eroticism. --Ciz 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [Still no evidence seen supportive of claim. Also see Ciz: "Zoophilia was a term created by bestials to make it more acceptable" [139] also see other quotes above]

(5) Cited quote by FT2:

Ciz cites a quote by FT2 saying "This was the FT2 message that warranted the 'you sicko' comment from me". Personal atatck aside, he also omits the substance of the quote, which was (in full) as follows: [140]

Ciz, what you have just said is completely a personal view. You need to read the previous debate to see whats already been discussed and take each side seriously. A lot of thought seems to have gone into both. Thats how Wikipedia works. As someone who works in fringe sexualities, I have personal views, but like yours and most people's, many of them are just that - my personal views. You're entitled to hold them, but if you make a statement here, it needs to be NPOV.

Example

The statement "animals cannot consent" makes a good example of why people feel you are posting POV:

No evidence or neutral source is offered for this assertation.
A large number of people including animal breeders and most animal care books, state that animals can and do choose to engage, solicit or indulge in sexual activity of their own wish.
It is common knowledge that dogs and primates (and therefore presumably other species) will readily solicit or demand sex from different species (including humans), act sexually towards them, seek repeat encounters if allowed.
If denied, they will often turn to inanimate objects such as furniture and attempt to solicit sex from these.
It is also well known that many animals masturbate and that by all accounts they obtain enjoyment from choosing sexual contact, which would make common sense as well.

This is neutrally verifiable, and sources and examples are available for each of these. These include substantial academic research, animal welfare and other books, anecdotal evidence and photographs. This is what is meant by sourced information.

A statement that basically says "I, of my own thinking, cannot believe X is true or right", is POV, and should be left out, however strongly you personally may feel it is relevant or true.

I am going to suggest we revert the page to how it was before your recent edits, and that if you then have any contributions, they can be discussed here one by one. I also think you need to read and understand the points made in the original discussion page, so we don't rehash them again, and that you understand why these were by and large felt to be appropriate discussions where yours were not. FT2 14:13, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Only the middle section is quoted by Ciz. [Response: Was the quote taken out of context? You stated all those as 'neutrally viable' information. --Ciz 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

(6) Clarification of JAQ quote:

Mention is made of JAQ "removing" pro zoophile bias. Its worth recapping JAQ's own description: "I want to explain a little what I was trying to accomplish with my edit. The list of zoophile traits, although apparently based on research, really read like a pamphlet ... keeping the description brief and limited ... makes it less of a target for criticism, while still making the general informative point." Hence my agreement it was a good call. On review, I agreed. [____]

(7)Allegation of bias against FT2:

I rebut this on several levels:

My record or postings, visible on the talk page and in history.
The dubiousness of the accusation - Ciz himself has made clear he doesn't cares about process, true or false accusations or policy. He has systematically accused pretty much everyone of bias and bestiality at some point, who doesn't take an extreme POV on the article.
My own actions in this debate;
- I introduced academic material where none was cited.
- I solicited requests for opposing points of view, on the basis I was not content that these were fully being represented. "Collectively I'm sure there is a big "against" view as well. Can we be that sure we are representing it fully as is?" [141]
- I again asked specifically for opposing views. "Should there be a section 'views against zoophilia' for NPOV? If so what belongs in it? Can we get contributions added which show that side of it fairly, without getting into edit wars..." [142]
- After editing the article, I switched the tag from Controversial2 ("discussed and consensus reached") to Controversial3 ("some of which have reached a consensus and some of which may be disputed"). My explanation: "This is not because I am aware of any dispute. Its because a lot of research has been added and I don't want to assert it is still consensus unless others agree and are happy." same edit
- I requested a neutrality check for wording, on all material submitted, even though this was sourced academic and related material, and nobody had challenged it, to ensure that no overall POV was being given by impression. same edit. "At a quick glance, it looks fine to me." Sillydragon "Read it over. Looks good to me too. Nice job." PMC
- I (not Ciz) added details on sexual abuse of animals to the article, and I (not Ciz) have been praised for trying to keep it neutral and for general patience.
- I further added a note in article body actually pointing readers to the above request for review. "Note - a check of the neutrality of this section has been requested by the editor adding this material, to confirm whether any edit is needed in order that it meets Wikipedia neutrality criteria. Observations may also be made on the article's talk page." [143]
- I complimented (unreserved) JAQ on his edits, which are agreed if anything to reduce any pro-zoophile tendency, because they were "Good call, effective and appropriate" [144] and again followed up at [145]
- I solicited views whether a statement that Zoophilia "has been" condemned is strong enough, or whether to change it to "is often" condemned (removing implication that it is not current), etc. [146]
- I added a rider to the article explaining the apparent mis-balance of research (although not required to do so), and opening this up on the talk page; critiqued by Tachusvelox for being too apologetic. [147]
- When questioned, I provided clear statements of background information that may be checked or criticised by others. [148] and [149]

In support of his allegation, Ciz quotes a specific post on the talk page. My rebuttal of his argument will simply be to quote the full context for that quote (which he conveniently part-cites) and let the ArbCom decide. The source which Ciz partly quotes is here: [150]. After vandalism and multiple explanations (all of which had been ignored by Ciz), this was the full context:

Kizor: "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."

Ciz: It is not a neutral term. It was created by bestials to make it more acceptable to the public

FT2: "<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>
Whether you like it or not, it's clear that a word exists for the aspects of human/animal relationships such as affinity, attraction and the like, that do *not* consist of sticking tab A in slot B. This is that word, and this is the article discussing knowledge about such things, correctly named by the word that describes its contents. As pretty much said above:

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 an artcle 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."

From this it can be seen that what Ciz is citing as a "POV", is actually part of an attempt to explain NPOV and terminology to him, despite many many failed attempts. It is for this reason that

You compared using the word bestiality over zoophilia to using words like 'baby killer' for abortion and 'pedophiallic predator' for gays. You compared the official term used to be as bad as extreme hate words for other groups.--Ciz 12:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Left to ArbCom to consider how far patience lasts before you start having to have a superhuman degree of restraint...] You dont get it. You compared using the word bestiality to using extreme words like pedophallic predator and baby killer. --Ciz 02:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(7) Deletions:

See evidence section for outright vandalism, deletion of opposing POVs, massacring of article and selected edits of others quotes. Almost NONE of these were "put back". In fact when reverted, most were repeated, often more than once. [Response: I said any comments deleted in the talk section debate were 'put back.' Not in the zoophilia entry itself. Wikipedia states "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Furthermore, opposing povs? I thought Wiki entries werent supposed to have povs in the first place. --Ciz 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [After 3 months of vandalism, it's clear you still don't comprehend in the slightest what NPOV means or what wikipedia is about. And no they weren't "put back". And "ruthlessly edited" does not mean a licence to hack out entire huge chunks of encyclopaedic articles if you happen to disagree with them. And ... oh forget it....] [Response: The stuff deleted was pov. Even after they were reverted, JAQ had to reduce it for being 'pro-zoo apologia.' And I have not intentionally deleted someone's comments in a debate. --Ciz 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)] [Untrue. But I will leave JAQ to rebut this in his evidence]

Last Links

With 100 links available and 98 used.... (before Ciz started editing this section anyhow)

Thank you for reading this far. One last link:

cartoon

Evidence presented by Ciz

First of all, I advise anyone involved with the arbitration comittee to read the whole Talk:Zoophilia debate before they make their decision, and not just the selected comments pasted here.

Also, in regards to the 'He only posts on the zoophilia stuff' argument; this is not my only account. I have another account with several contributions that I dont want to be associated with a bestiality debate.--Ciz 19:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes for referral (with request for full wikipedia ban): (Bold highlights mine --Ciz 14:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC))

FT2 FT2 stated that the zoophilia entry gets "neutral and balanced reporting" which is just as true as Fox's "Fair and Balanced" logo. He also states "I can just see him going round, splitting the world into people who are ignorant fanatics, and people who obviously have a guilty secret *grins*" So basically peopel who believe having sex with animals is abusive are ignorant fanatics? He also states that "individuals may have more open private opinions [on bestiality] which they do not express publicly." which states that people secretly think that bestiality is ok but are afraid to speak out, and also implies that believing bestiality to be ok is openminded.

Schneelocke

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)

Schnee's response Take your flaming somewhere else. -- Schnee 14:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zetawoof An informal poll of a group of zoophiles has shown that most agree with the traits listed under 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle', and there don't seem to be any remaining POV issues. (I'm a zoo, and I don't have any particular issues with the page content.) So I'm removing the NPOV tag. Everyone fine with this? --Zetawoof 07:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) Zeta is also a registered user at BeastForum.com The Worlds Largest Bestiality Board.

JAQ
GRider

This was the FT2 message that warranted the 'you sicko' comment from me.--Ciz 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement "animals cannot consent" makes a good example of why people feel you are posting POV:

No evidence or neutral source is offered for this assertation.
In the course of research, it transpired that a large number of people including animal breeders and most animal care books, state that animals can and do choose to engage, solicit or indulge in sexual activity of their own wish.
It is common knowledge that dogs and primates (and therefore presumably other species) will readily solicit or demand sex from different species (including humans), act sexually towards them, seek repeat encounters if allowed.
If denied, they will often turn to inanimate objects such as furniture and attempt to solicit sex from these.
It is also well known that many animals masturbate and that by all accounts they obtain enjoyment from choosing sexual contact, which would make common sense as well.

This is neutrally verifiable, and sources and examples are available for each of these. These include substantial academic research, animal welfare and other books, anecdotal evidence and photographs. This is what is meant by sourced information.

User:FT2|FT2]] 14:13, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)User:FT2|FT2]] 14:13, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I am no expert on furs nor on Sega characters, I can understand that anthropomorphic characters such as Sonic the Hedgehog could legitimately be seen as Furry by many. The following edits may therefore be relevant in the light of Ciz' campaign of harrassment of furrys, potentially as evidence that Ciz removes furry references from characters he views positively, without consensus.

1. Oct.29 - removed Category:Furry from Sonic the Hedgehog [91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&diff=6983019&oldid=6970265).

(Reverted Nov.1 [92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&diff=7127680&oldid=7058709))

2. Oct.29 - removed Category:Furry from Miles "Tails" Prower (friend of Sonic) [93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Miles_%22Tails%22_Prower&diff=6974725&oldid=6970212). '3. Dec.14 - removed Category:Furry from Sonic the Hedgehog again[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog&diff=8480254&oldid=8456485)

Its a video game. Where you play a hedgehog. Who fights a guy named Eggman. It has nothing to do with the 'furry' community just because the characters are animals. That logic could apply to hundreds of media that feature animal characters. What next; Is the Redwall series also a part of the furry community? No.--Ciz 22:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is FinalGamer's entire, uncut comment. 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.Zoophilia was a term invented to separate those who LOVE animals, from those who RAPE animals (the bestialists), as far as I can tell. So, it comes to the conclusion of the motives of the human. If it is selfishness, intent of harm, and so forth, then it's bestiality. If it's love, intent to care, and no intention to harm, then it's zoophilia. Why is FT2 so hellbent against showing it in its full form?

FinalGamer's comments fit the Humane Concepts' description of 'zoophiles' to the letter. In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires. 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. Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications. --Ciz 19:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(itallics mine --Ciz 19:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Personal attack, with or without veiled or overt accusation of zoophilia ("if you support this article then...")

It is a lot more than that. People here have defended zoophilia itself, or talked about the specifics of it ("you cant have sex with small dogs, but the larger breeds are big enough", ect).

Zoophilia is pedophilia, all zoophiles are like pedophiles, etc

Having sex with animals is similiar to having sex with children, as neither have the necessary intelligence needed to consent. Ever hear of 'informed consent'?

All zoophilia is inherently abusive

Having sex with animals is abusive.

The title of article should be bestiality, zoophilia is a name made up by zoophiles who are like boylovers, etc

No, the term existed before. But it originally just meant someone who really liked animals. Now its used to describe erotic attraction to them. The term was appropiated to make bestiality sound more acceptable. Even Schnee admitted this when [s]he changed the word bestiality to zoophilia because bestiality had 'negative connotations.' (actual words) Bestiality is the legal term, and zoophilia is usually used to make it sound better

The article is biased or POV because it doesnt attack zoophiles, article should be against zoophiles, etc

It is biased because it supports 'zoophilia'

Diatribes against the evils of bestiality/zoophilia
Attacks on furries and accusations of being closet bestialists

My accusations are founded on more than being a furry.

Vandalism and editing of others comments

I have not deliberately deleted someone's comments on the talk page. If I have by accident when I typed my own comments in, I have tried to put the words back.

Weasel terms

Yes, apparently saying that most people think bestiality is wrong is using 'weasel terms.' This isnt something like abortion, where it's pretty much 50/50.

Straw men

<day2> <month>

<timestamp1>
- What happened.

<timestamp2>
- What happened.

<timestamp3>
- What happened.

Evidence presented by JAQ

19 December

23:26 UTC
- I explained to Ciz on his Talk page that editing another user's evidence section (as he'd recently done) is explicitly contrary to the instructions on this page, suggesting to him that ignoring those rules was a really bad idea. The point being: He was specifically advised not to do this, particularly not here. [151]

20-21 December

23:52-00:15, 00:55-00:58 UTC
- Ciz resumed editing FT2's evidence section. (Also cited by FT2.) [152][153]

Re: Ciz's assertion, "The people who posted those comments havent returned, leaving only the pro-zoo people. Hence the reason why there was the consensus; there were no opposing views (this has changed recently when the recent Deletion topic was posted, alterting some people to the entry)." [154]
For the record, I have been contributing an "opposing" view (since well before Ciz's inappropriate VfD submission), questioning material which I felt took a pro-zoo POV and suggesting more neutral substitutes. I haven't contributed many edits yet to the article, but that's largely because of the chaos surrounding Ciz, which has made reasoned discussion and thoughtful editing difficult at best. Other contributors to the article have accepted or even praised my contributions, I am respectful of them, and I am not particularly "anti-zoo"... which may be why Ciz considers me "pro-zoo". But I am working on an overhaul of the article to submit when the current VPROT is removed, which will address some of the POV objections Ciz has touched on (some are valid), as well as my own. In summary: His characterization of the other editors of the article as all "pro-zoo" is... disputed. [155] [156] [157] [158]

JAQ 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Ciz: The stuff deleted was pov. Even after they were reverted, JAQ had to reduce it for being 'pro-zoo apologia.' [159]
Yeah, I did feel it was biased. But as I understand it, this isn't an arbitration over whether Ciz's opinions are correct; instead it's about whether his conduct is appropriate. And his remark here demonstrates his frequent response to material that's biased (whether a sentence, a section, or an entire article) but others see as fixable: he deletes it. JAQ 03:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: "[Schneelocke's] livejournal does not say he is a zoophile [Response: His livejournal lists zoophilia as one of his interests. --Ciz 00:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a zoophile. Evidently zoophilia is one of my interests (as indicated by my participation in developing this article), but I don't have any particular affinity for animals (I have a goldfish named Fish), nor (using Ciz's definition of zoophile) do I have sex with animals (definitely not with Fish). Maybe Schneelocke does, maybe he doesn't. But it was an inappropriate assertion. JAQ 14:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FT2 in relation to Schneelocke

I have taken the unusual step of adding this section myself, as evidence related to Ciz' many attacks on him. An accusation against an admin for abuse of power is a serious matter, and I feel strongly they should not be left to stand in this manner. All my information has been sourced. Schnee has erotic drawings of animals on the internet, describes himself as an 'arctic wolf slave', and lists his interests on his livejournal as "furries, furry, furry art, fursuit sex, fursuits, hugging,plushies, sex, werewolves, wolves, yiff, yiffing, zoophilia, zoosexuality." Schnee has also changed the term most recognised (bestiality) to zoophilia 'since bestiality is a term with very negative connotations.' And Schnee has yet to state his stance on whether or not he believes it to be abusive. --Ciz 17:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the sysop, of course, so I restrict myself to listing and annotating his posts on the article and its talk page in toto, trusting this is more that sufficient to refute any allegations of malpractice and to demonstrate the libellous nature of the accusations made. Should Scheelocke wish to add his own evidence (or endorse this) I leave it to him to edit, supersede or repeal this section as he sees fit.

Zoophilia (edits listed as "minor")

2003: [160] [161] [162] [163] (Bestiality article had been directed to "zoophilia", these were consistency edits)
Jul 2004: mythology pic
Oct 2004 (pre-Ciz): [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] (mostly minor consistency edits, link fixes and wikifying)
Oct 2004 (post-Ciz): +vprot
Nov 2004: rvt Ciz POV pushing +vprot +vprot again
Dec 2004: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]

Zoophilia (edits listed as "not minor")

Sep 5, 2003 [183] Add minor info, and NPOV fixes
Sep 5, 2003 [184] Use a smaller image
Aug 20, 2004 [185] Minor fmt

Talk:Zoophilia (edits listed as "minor")

Talk:Zoophilia (archiving edits)

Nov 2004: [186] [187] [188] [189]
Dec 2004: [190] [191]

Talk:Zoophilia (other contributions)

Mar 17, 2004 [192] "Claiming it shouldn't be in the article because it's not in a regular dictionary is nonsense - it just proves that the dictionaries in question are lagging behind the actual use of words"
Oct 17, 2004 [193] Asking for clarification about a generalistion, "Can you explain why that would be comparable"
Oct 28, 2004 [194] "The page has been protected for now due to the persistent vandalism by the anon user with IP address ... [Ciz]"
Oct 28, 2004 [195] "I just got an email regarding the article, probably from the user who's been doing the vandalism ... I'm not gonna reply to it; if you (Ciz) want to discuss this, please do so here. Thanks"
Nov 1, 2004 [196] "It might be worth noting that wolves do not express dominance in this way, so I think it is unlikely at least that this behaviour in dogs is an expression of dominance"
Nov 1, 2004 [197] Ciz vandalism "He actually removed the second half of your comment. It was put back later, but apparently only in part"
Nov 1, 2004 [198] Response to Ciz comment on furries: "I think a correction is needed here. First of all, the group was called "burnt furs", not "burn fur"; second, they don't exist anymore; and third, they were not opposed to zoophilia, they were opposed to anything that involved both furry and sexuality (artwork, in particular)."
Nov 2, 2004 [199] Offensive behavior "FT2 listed him on WP:RFC; we'll see what happens now"
Nov 2, 2004 [200] "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 ... If you have specific complaints about the article (i.e., if you feel that parts of it are not NPOV, factually inaccurate etc.), then please state on this talk page exactly which parts you disagree with and why. Be as specific as possible; that is, don't say "this section is POV" or "the entire article is POV", but rather point to the exact statements made in the article that you think are problematic. Thank you "
Nov 2, 2004 [201] Discussion style - minor edits to above comment
Nov 6, 2004 [202] Please get involved in the mediation process!
Nov 8, 2004 [203] "Ciz, please try to avoid messing up the page completely when you try to edit it"

I think it would be fair to have specific findings that

Schneelocke acted properly.
Ciz' allegations of POV pushing or abuse of adminship are without merit.

Evidence presented by (your name)

<day1> <month>

<timestamp1>
- What happened.

<timestamp2>
- What happened.

<timestamp3>
- What happened.

<day2> <month>

<timestamp1>
- What happened.

<timestamp2>
- What happened.

<timestamp3>
- What happened.

Evidence presented by FT2

Introduction

General posts and posts relating to main article Zoophilia

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

Posts related to talk pages

October 2004 (T)

November 2004 (T)

December 2004 (T)

Other evidence

Vandalism of Adolph Hitler

Ranting

Vandalism of Arbitration vote

Interspersion of comments

Vandalism of User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz

Unsupported POV posts on articles listed as "related" to zoophilia

Personal attack on FinalGamer

Personal attacks against Steele

Removal of Category:Furry from articles

Other relevant information (summary of Ciz' activity as a user)

Response to Ciz comments

Last Links

Evidence presented by Ciz

<day2> <month>

Evidence presented by JAQ

19 December

20-21 December

Evidence presented by FT2 in relation to Schneelocke

Evidence presented by (your name)

<day1> <month>

<day2> <month>