Ciz

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Please have a look at Wikipedia:What is mediation?. The requests for mediation page is not for discussing the subject (Zoophilia) itself, but to accept mediation and to find a mediator to work with. So please just state on that page if you are willing to mediate with one of us and state, if you have any preferences there, with which mediator (a list of them can be found here) you want to work. --Conti|✉ 05:16, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Ciz. I need to know if you are willing to participate in mediation. The idea is to introduce a neutral third party to the discussion to try and help you and the others involved resolve your dispute. A mediator will not make any decisions on the content of the article, but will try to help both sides find a way to work together. I understand the issues involved on both sides, so please don't go over them again at this point - that can happen within the mediation. For now please just let me know if you will give mediation a try. Regards -- sannse (talk) 10:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Ciz. 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. Regards -- sannse (talk) 23:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)(mediation committee)

Ciz. There is further discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Again, please respond there before making other edits. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 14:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Again, please do so before making other edits, as above. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

(copied from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation):

Thank you Ciz. The next question is who should be your mediator. I am available - will you accept me as mediator? If not, please look at the list of mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and I can ask if they would be willing to help. Please let me know what you decide. -- sannse (talk) 17:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've not heard from you on the above question again. For this to work, you need to participate actively in this mediation. That means concentrating on this, rather than editing Talk:Zoophilia. That way we may be able to get this dispute sorted. In order to do that, we need to decide on a mediator and then on a venue. If you keep arguing on Talk:Zoophilia at the same time, there really can be no progress. FT2 is willing to talk about this, and the others have agreed to let him be a representative for them, so please concentrate on the mediation discussion and let Talk:Zoophilia go for a while - in the long run this means more chance of agreeing an end to this dispute with both sides satisfied. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can be the mediator.--Ciz 01:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply - I've copied it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation -- sannse (talk) 12:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation again. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 -- sannse (talk) 20:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

I happened to catch you destroying several people's comments on archive 8 of Talk:Zoophilia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that it has been pointed out to you that doing so constitutes an act of vandalism. If indeed you are not willfully breaking the rules of this project (which seems to be the most likely reason), would you mind explaining yourself? -- Kizor 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The topic is running out of space, so I took away some unnecessary posts (basically stating the rules) to make some more room so there could be more discussion. I explained myself when I did it.--Ciz 19:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's my quote (which was deleted) If anyone's wondering why Im deleting stuff, its because this document is too big and we need to cut it down. I also said "I deleted it because this topic is becoming too large and stuff needs to be deleted. The stuff adds nothing to the current conversation and it can always be viewed in history." Furthermore, when one wants to edit the page they recieve a message saying "WARNING: This page is 73 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB." --Ciz 19:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then you archive and link to the archive. You don't delete posts. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

He can refactor them. This is specifically permitted. Dr Zen 00:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He may refactor them. Whether he can is debatable. I believe the same standards of fairness apply when editing Talk pages, and Ciz's grasp of them seems slippery at best. Archiving is definitely preferable, as there is no risk of bias. JAQ 12:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The comments I moved were not related to the current debate. It was just part of a guidline that could be referred to in history. Nothing else could be typed and they were taking up space. --Ciz 17:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zoophilia

I understand you have some problems with the content of the Zoophilia article, in particular on grounds of NPOV. POV content isn't a reason for deletion. The correct thing to do in such a case is to use the {{npov}} template and work to introduce more NPOV content into the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That has not worked. Removing pro-'zoo' comments has been called vandalism and the npov tag keeps on getting removed.--Ciz 22:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because removing others' content - simply because you disagree with it - is vandalism. And additing blatantly POV content for "balance" is not the same as "introducing NPOV content". You're trying to extinguish smoldering pro-zoo content by pouring lit napalm on it. JAQ 22:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well removing the NPOV tag was wrong when clearly there is a POV dispute; whoever did this was wrong to do so, except with a strong reason.

If when you remove "pro-zoo" comments this is called vandalism, try modifying or qualifying them.

What I am concerned about is that there is a suspicion that you may be making more blatant removals. For instance, looking at your most recent edit I see that you modified the sentence "As with BDSM and homosexuality, the activity is no longer classified as a pathology by DSM-IV when taken by itself, and people who practice zoophilia tend to reject the view of their activities as disordered" and removed all of the text that I have italicized. The statement you removed is factual, not POV. DSM-IV either does or does not list this paraphilia by itself as a pathology. In the same edit you also removed the whole of the remainder of the posting beginning "It is also unclear what proportion of", replacing everything with the letter "z". While this was probably an error, it doesn't improve my impression of your commitment to careful editing. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check the talk page. I already dealt with this. DSM still has zoophilia; they classify it under "Other paraphilias" because they felt that not every rare paraphilia needed its own category. --Ciz 14:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Ciz:

A complaint has been made against you with a request for arbitration, with a view to your removal from Wikipedia.

The request can be found at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

FT2 21:51, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed yet, the Arbitration Committee has voted to accept the case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz. You're expected to add a statement to the designated section of the page. - JAQ 21:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the explanation at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz/Evidence it says: "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." Ignoring FT2's requests about where you should add your comments to his preliminary page was just a bad idea; ignoring the rules of the arbitration process like this is a Really Bad Idea. JAQ 23:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So that you are aware...

Ciz, I don't know you at all, but I wanted to be sure that you had been notified that arbitration has been requested concerning you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. You are encouraged to respond to the charges being brought if you wish to do so. In case you aren't familiar with arbitration practices, there is a section devoted to your comments, which you are to restrict your comments to -- please do not reply to your accusers or the arbitrators in the sections they post in, but rather post your comments in your own section. Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 22:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(It had been notified, but on the user page, not the user talk page [1]. Now moved) FT2 22:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Temporary ArbCom order

"Pending resolution of this matter User:Ciz is banned from any Wikipedia pages other than his or her user pages and pages relating to this arbitration."

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban_of_Ciz. --mav 19:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Ruling

1) Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closly related articles, including their talk pages.

2) Ciz (using whatever account) is placed on standard personal attack parole indefinitely. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week.

3) If Ciz can demonstrate at a later date willingness to discuss and accept consensus without resorting to personal attacks, then Ciz may apply to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, its closly related pages, or their talk pages, any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block Ciz for up to 24 hours.

See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz. Ambi 05:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Add topic