Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/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:.

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.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.

Evidence presented by User:Limeheadnyc (Timbo)
I have been active at the clitoris discussion for quite some time now (perhaps before September 2004), so I am familiar with Dr Zen's behaviors. I hope this evidence is properly formatted etc. – if not, feel free to juggle it! T IMBO  ( T A L K )  01:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of clitoris image (from 11 Jan to present)
One should note that, during this time period, it was established that the vast majority of responding wikipedians favored the picture. (See Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 and polls here and here). Dr Zen's involvement at clitoris goes much, much farther back than what I have here, though – please see Tony Sidaway's evidence.
 * 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (Edit summary: Rm potentially offensive image. Wouldn't it be better to keep discussing the issue?)
 * 17:12, 8 Mar 2005 (Edit summary: Consensus means accord, not "the majority wins". Enough people oppose this to make it worth talking about.)
 * 18:19, 7 Mar 2005 (Edit summary: Let's consider linking the photo like the autofellatio one. Does Jimbo have to be offended before others' feelings are considered?)
 * 21:14, 6 Mar 2005 (Edit summary: See talk.)
 * 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (Edit summary: Rm potentially offensive picture. This is a wiki. It's not "vandalism" to edit pages.)
 * 19:04, 12 Jan 2005 (Edit summary: Rm picture for reasons given on talk page.)
 * 0:14, 12 Jan 2005 (Edit summary: Rv vandalism)
 * 18:54, 11 Jan 2005 (Edit summary: rm potentially offensive picture.)

Recent dialogue between User:Limeheadnyc and User:Dr Zen
When Dr Zen returned to clitoris after his hiatus, the comments on Talk:Clitoris as well as Zen's interaction with Raul654, Snowspinner, etc. was quite heated and unproductive. I decided to try to have as calm and honest a dialogue with him as possible. I can't tell if I'm being trolled, but it's at least better than the backbiting and venom we may have, unfortunately, come to expect over the clitoris picture.
 * 21:57, 7 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 03:25, 8 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 03:34, 8 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 15:37, 8 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 15:46, 8 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 16:53, 8 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 17:06, 8 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 19:28, 8 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 19:40, 9 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 21:26, 9 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 21:57, 9 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:
 * 23:26, 9 Mar 2005 User:Limeheadnyc:
 * 00:33, 10 Mar 2005 User:Dr Zen:

Evidence given by Tony Sidaway
This evidence is related to the strength of community consensus for the display, without extra warnings and the like, of a photograph illustrating the female sexual organs, on the clitoris article.

14 Nov 2004

 * Talk:Clitoris/Archive4: Poll on replacing photograph with anatomical drawing. Poll was listed in Current surveys and ran for one month from 14 October.  Drawing lost 8/56/0.

8 Nov 2004

 * Talk:Clitoris/Archive4: Poll on using a disclaimer at the top of the article. Poll was listed in Current surveys and ran for two weeks  from 25 October.  Disclaimer lost 9/25/0.

History of use of media on Clitoris
This shows how the images currently on Clitoris came to be there, and the various edit wars and surveys on the way. There is evidence of extensive sock puppetry and trolling.

25 Oct 2001

 * 18:32
 * Earliest available copy of article. Not illustrated.

9 May 2003

 * 21:17
 * JohnQ (talk &middot; contributions) adds Image:Clitoris.jpg inline: "Close-up of a clitoris" . Current MediaWiki software displays that drawing somewhat oversized.
 * 21:43
 * TakuyaMurata (talk &middot; contributions) removes inline image, "delete photo; putting such a picture should be controversial".
 * 21:43
 * 213.253.39.155 (talk &middot; contributions) adds external link to a diagram on cancer.gov showing the location of the clitoris.
 * 21:52
 * JohnQ (talk &middot; contributions) adds Image:Clitoris.jpg as an external link to the wikipedia media with the warning "This could be considered as offensive by some people. Don't click on it if you are not sure to want to see that)".
 * 21:55
 * JohnQ (talk &middot; contributions) moves the link up from "External links" to just after the introductory paragraph.
 * 21:56, 21:57
 * 213.253.39.155 (talk &middot; contributions) moves link back to "External links",.
 * 22:07
 * Cgs (talk &middot; contributions) removes link with the edit summary "I really think this needs to be removed while we talk - see village pump".

10 May, 2003

 * 07:25
 * 81.48.186.171 (talk &middot; contributions) in an edit mislabelled "spelling", restores link.
 * 07:51
 * Tannin (talk &middot; contributions) "Reverted to last edit by Cgs".
 * 07:51 until 14 May, 2003, 20:00
 * There followed an edit war mainly between Tannin and Tarquin (talk &middot; contributions) who removed the link, and 80.11.238.49, and two other users confusingly named Tanin (talk &middot; contributions) and Tarquinn (talk &middot; contributions) (sock puppets?) who restored it. The latter two users have no editing history outside this small conflict.

16 May, 2003

 * 13:11
 * MyRedDice (talk &middot; contributions) restores link: "reinstating media:clitoris.jp link, pending the uploading of a better photo" . Link now has brief disclaimer: "warning: explicit photograph".
 * This doesn't change much over the next months.

14 Mar, 2004

 * 10:55
 * Article with link now looks like this.
 * 10:58
 * Maveric149 (talk &middot; contributions) removes image links "image does not exist".
 * 11:44
 * MyRedDice (talk &middot; contributions) "rv - fixed image by re-upload".

20 Mar, 2004

 * 20:04
 * MyRedDice (talk &middot; contributions) alters image link. "update image".

11 May, 2004

 * 00:53
 * Anthere (talk &middot; contributions) replaces the link by the inlined image . No disclaimer.
 * 01:14
 * Bryan Derksen (talk &middot; contributions) thumbnails image.
 * First appearance of illustrated article in something close to its modern form.

11-13 May, 2004

 * Edit war over the inlined image.
 * Inlining opposed by edits of Delirium (talk &middot; contributions)
 * Inlining supported by edits of Eloquence (talk &middot; contributions), David Gerard (talk &middot; contributions), 172 (talk &middot; contributions).
 * Initial informal consensus for inlining established.

13 June, 2004

 * 05:16
 * Raul654 (talk &middot; contributions) adds diagram showing cross section of female reproductive apparatus . [
 * Article has taken on its present-day form as this diff between that version and a recent version shows: .

9-16 July, 2004

 * Edit war over inlining/linking/deleting image.
 * Cantus (talk &middot; contributions) removed image, saying that the article needed to be kept "safe for work", then compromised by linking it.
 * David Gerard (talk &middot; contributions), chocolateboy (talk &middot; contributions), Hephaestos (talk &middot; contributions) and Marnanel (talk &middot; contributions) inlined image.
 * 205.188.116.148 (talk &middot; contributions) removed it with edit summary "Can not show nudity on wikipedia it is wrong and immoral must censor".
 * Consensus for inlining image confirmed

30 August, 2004-1 Sep, 2004

 * Edit war over Cantus's introduction of a drawing to replace the photograph.
 * Cantus (talk &middot; contributions) replaced photograph by drawing
 * David Gerard (talk &middot; contributions), Chocolateboy (talk &middot; contributions), Marnanel (talk &middot; contributions), and 172 (talk &middot; contributions) reverted to photograph.
 * Informal consensus for photograph rather than drawing established

1 Sep 2004

 * 05:51
 * Hadal protected page
 * 21:59
 * Guanaco unprotected

20 Sep

 * 06:09
 * 198.81.26.74 (talk &middot; contributions) removes picture.
 * 06:27
 * Raul654 (talk &middot; contributions) reverts removal of picture.

1 Oct

 * Brief but heated edit war in which 198.81.26.70 (talk &middot; contributions) and 198 (talk &middot; contributions) (same person?) remove image many times and are reverted by Ezhiki (talk &middot; contributions), Hadal (talk &middot; contributions), Xezbeth (talk &middot; contributions), Theresa knott (talk &middot; contributions), and Raul654 (talk &middot; contributions)
 * 23:46
 * Theresa knott (talk &middot; contributions) protects article and puts up "vprotect" template.

9 Oct, 2004

 * 01:20
 * Silsor (talk &middot; contributions) changes "vprotect" notice to "protect".

11 Oct 2004

 * 13:37
 * Theresa knott (talk &middot; contributions) unprotects article.

12 Oct, 2004

 * 01:43
 * KeyStroke (talk &middot; contributions) replaces picture with an image saying "Due to the highly provocitive (sic) nature of showing actual human sexual organs, please utilize the below link to see an anatomical view of the subject of this article" and a link to a diagram, with the edit summary "I think this solution will satisfy everyone....".
 * 02:18
 * Haham hanuka (talk &middot; contributions) reverts "to protect the page again?".
 * 02:26
 * Article protected by Schneelocke (talk &middot; contributions).

20 Oct, 2004

 * Protection lifted.


 * 03:24
 * Cantus (talk &middot; contributions) introduces a disclaimer at the top of the article.
 * Brief but busy edit war over whether to have a disclaimer
 * 23:33
 * Ezhiki protects article.

23 Oct, 2004

 * Protection lifted again.
 * More edit warring over notice follows.
 * 16:36 Schneelocke (talk &middot; contributions) protects article.

7 November, 2004

 * 23:59
 * Protection lifted at end of survey in which a clear consensus there was a 75% vote to have no disclaimer.

7-10 November, 2004

 * Huge edit war to enforce the result of the survey.
 * Cantus (talk &middot; contributions) repeatedly reinstated the disclaimer
 * Irate (talk &middot; contributions) repeatedly removed the disclaimer
 * 198 (talk &middot; contributions) repeatedly reinstated the disclaimer
 * Dr Zen (talk &middot; contributions) removed the disclaimer
 * Minority Report (talk &middot; contributions) (aka Tony Sidaway) removed the disclaimer
 * Schneelocke (talk &middot; contributions) removed the disclaimer
 * Raul654 (talk &middot; contributions) removed the disclaimer
 * Removal of the disclaimer was enforced

10 November, 2004

 * 14:12
 * Irkut (talk &middot; contributions) removed the picture.
 * A brief edit war followed.
 * Irkut (talk &middot; contributions) repeatedly removed the picture.
 * This user seems to have been a sock created for the purpose.
 * chmod007 (talk &middot; contributions) repeatedly replaced it.
 * Irate (talk &middot; contributions) replaced it.
 * Fvw (talk &middot; contributions) replaced it.
 * The picture was retained.
 * 21:47
 * Another brief edit war started up over the disclaimer.
 * Oven Fresh (talk &middot; contributions) reinstated the disclaimer.
 * Cantus (talk &middot; contributions) and 198 (talk &middot; contributions) also tried to restore the disclaimer.
 * chmod007, Theresa knott and Raul654 reverted them.

11 November, 2004

 * 11:21
 * Maveric149 (talk &middot; contributions) replaced old picture with new one: "replaced possible copyright infringing photo with a GFDL one".
 * A brief edit war followed.
 * Zygot (talk &middot; contributions), User110 (talk &middot; contributions), Docmartin2 (talk &middot; contributions), and CaptainFreedom (talk &middot; contributions) removed the picture.
 * The above users all seem to have been sock puppets created for the purpose.
 * Violetriga (talk &middot; contributions) and Irate (talk &middot; contributions) restored it.
 * 18:55
 * Violetriga protected the article and put up a "vprotect" notice.

17 November, 2004

 * 12:10
 * Ta bu shi da yu (talk &middot; contributions) removed protection notice.
 * By then the result of the survey on the image was over and the result was a clear consensus to keep.
 * After that, things settled down for a bit.

29 November, 2004

 * 14:21
 * Anthony DiPierro (talk &middot; contributions) removed image.
 * 14:26
 * Anthony DiPierro (talk &middot; contributions) inserted link to image.
 * There followed a brief edit war between DiPierro and others.

30 November, 2004

 * 01:06
 * Ta bu shi da yu (talk &middot; contributions) protected the article.
 * 16:11
 * Article unprotected.

1 December, 2004

 * 20:23
 * Smitti (talk &middot; contributions) removed the picture claiming it was in violation of his community standards.
 * a heated edit war followed between Smitti and others.
 * 21:05
 * Spwoo (talk &middot; contributions) took over from Smitti.
 * 21:12
 * User:Ezhiki blocked User:Spwoo with an expiry time of 24 hours (sockpuppet; removing picture from the Clitoris article)
 * 21:12 User:Chmod007 blocked User:Spwoo with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR rule with this and Smitti accounts)
 * 21:16
 * 152.163.100.139 (talk &middot; contributions) joined in.
 * 21:20
 * Lolol (talk &middot; contributions) took over.
 * 21:37
 * User:Ezhiki blocked User:Lolol with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR Rule, possible sockpuppeting)
 * These were clearly all sock puppets created for the express purpose of edit warring on clitoris.

2 December, 2004

 * 01:03
 * User:David Gerard blocked User:Lolol with an expiry time of 24 hours (reincarnated vandal User:Spwoo and User:Smitti, vandalising Clitoris)
 * 12:37
 * Anthony DiPierro (talk &middot; contributions) took over the edit warring.
 * This went to-and-fro for a bit.
 * 14:07
 * Violetriga vprotected.
 * There followed a brief squabble between admins over whether the correct template to use was "protect" or "vprotect".
 * 14:51
 * User:Theresa knott blocked User:Lolol with an expiry time of indefinite (clearly a sockpuppet)
 * 15:29
 * User:Theresa knott blocked User:Smitti with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet)

5 December, 2004

 * 05:07
 * Unprotected

6 December, 2004

 * 03:45
 * Anthony resumes edit warring.
 * Carried on for a bit, then:
 * 20:19
 * User:Snowspinner blocked User:Anthony DiPierro with an expiry time of 24 hours (Provacative edits on Clitoris as per standing order. Was warned.)
 * 20:50
 * Spp (talk &middot; contributions) takes up the "edit war" baton.
 * Clearly another sock puppet.
 * Died down a bit after this gave up or was blocked.
 * 22:21
 * User:Raul654 blocked user:spp with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)

7 December, 2004

 * 00:56
 * User:Guanaco unblocked User:Anthony DiPierro (Snowspinner was involved in the revert war on Clitoris and therefore should not block Anthony. Anthony stayed within the 3RR, and his edits are no more provocative than the others made on Clitoris. (Note: I disagree with Anthony on the photo issue.))
 * 01:15
 * User:Raul654 blocked User:Anthony DiPierro with an expiry time of 16 hours (Reblocking following User:Guanaco's incorrect unblock)

11 December, 2004

 * 20:51
 * Anthony DiPierro comes back and edit wars again

12 December, 2004

 * 15:58
 * Revert of anthony's removal of picture by Tony Sidaway (talk &middot; contributions) . This was accompanied on the talk page by an invitation to discuss the situation: . In the course of that discussion, Dr Zen announces that he has changed his view. He had regarded the replacement photo as a placeholder pending a more suitable one, but now he thought no picture at all would be better than the present one.

13 December, 2004

 * 03:35
 * User:Raul654 blocked User:Anthony DiPierro with an expiry time of 24 hours (Revert warring on Clitoris)

14 December, 2004

 * 07:24
 * Dr Zen first removes (comments out) the photo. "This is a wiki. I believe the photo should be removed until there is a consensus for it.".
 * 07:27
 * Limeheadnyc (talk &middot; contributions) (aka "TIMBO") reverts "rv -- see talk page".
 * 07:33
 * Article is protected again.

15 December, 2004

 * 15:21, 15:27, 15:30
 * Theresa knott (talk &middot; contributions) removes protection and swaps photo for a link to an identical one that is anatomically labelled. The switch to a link was a result of an agreement between herself, Limeheadnyc (talk &middot; contributions), Dr Zen (talk &middot; contributions) and Tony Sidaway (talk &middot; contributions) while a more suitable photograph for inlining was found  (diff of three edits).
 * Another short edit war followed.

16 December, 2004

 * 00:30, 00:31
 * Schneelocke (talk &middot; contributions) restores inlined picture and vprotects the article (diff of two edits).
 * 04:54
 * Cool Hand Luke (talk &middot; contributions) changes "vprotect" to "protect" (content dispute, not vandalism).

28 December, 2004

 * 16:45
 * Mbecker (talk &middot; contributions) edits size of image while article still protected.

29 December, 2004

 * 03:10
 * Mbecker unprotects article.
 * 03:58
 * Mbecker switches image to new version with different annotations.
 * 04:40
 * Dr Zen switches to linked version of same image.
 * Another brief edit war ensued but it settled down by itself (perhaps Zen was blocked?) Dr Zen wasn't blocked.

2 January

 * 01:59
 * Vacuum (talk &middot; contributions) added "content warning" template.
 * 02:08
 * Irate reverts it.
 * 15:10
 * Protected by Schneelocke
 * 17:22
 * Unprotected "No major edit war at the moment (should not have been protected) and not on Wikipedia:Protected page - unprotected"

5 January

 * 14:48
 * Cookiecaper (talk &middot; contributions) adds link to forked version.
 * Another brief edit war ensued. Fork link does not last. Fork is VfD'd and deleted.
 * 23:39
 * Tony Sidaway (talk &middot; contributions) switches in a picture from Vulva which also shows the clitoris, as an experiment.

6 January

 * 04:12
 * Mbecker reverts to previous picture.

6-7 January

 * Some adjustments to display size of picture

11 January

 * 23:54
 * Dr Zen (talk &middot; contributions) removes picture, "rm potentially offensive picture".
 * 23:57
 * Irate (talk &middot; contributions) reverts, "revert vandalism".
 * Another edit war ensues.

15 January

 * 01:27
 * Schneelocke vprotects.
 * 05:06
 * David Gerard blocked "User:Dr Zen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (knowing vandalism on Clitoris again)
 * 05:09
 * David Gerard unblocked User:Dr Zen (almost 24 hours after the vandalism in question)

16 January

 * 11:45
 * Cool Hand Luke (talk &middot; contributions) switches vprotect to protect.

17 January

 * 04:15
 * User:Dr Zen's last clitoris-related edit until early March.

18 January

 * 17:20
 * Mbecker unprotects.

21 January-23 February

 * Longrunning but minor edit war over whether to have an "enduring single-issue dispute" tag in the page.

23 February

 * 22:53
 * 80.58.43.107 (talk &middot; contributions) removes image . This was part of a series of three removals of pictures with nudity apparently carried out in the same session from this IP number.  See also Brazilian Women's football team posing removed from Playboy, Courbet's L'Origine du Monde removed from Erotic art.
 * Very brief edit war occurs.

7 March

 * 02:14
 * Dr Zen's first clitoris-related edit since 17 Jan. "The principle that "unacceptable" photos may be removed is established, and the argument that censorship does not happen on Wikipedia is thereby proven false. The photo in this article is unacceptable to some. If it is not removed from time to time, the hardliners suppose that the article is "stable". The objections to the picture in question have not been resolved and will not while that supposition remains unchallenged.".
 * 02:14
 * Dr Zen (talk &middot; contributions) removes the image with the edit summary "see talk".
 * An edit war follows. 198 (talk &middot; contributions) joins in on Zen's side.  Karada (talk &middot; contributions), Irate (talk &middot; contributions), Snowspinner (talk &middot; contributions) and Cool Hand Luke (talk &middot; contributions) restore the image.
 * 23:37
 * User:Snowspinner blocked User:Dr Zen for 24 hours "Repeated vandalism of Clitoris after warning"

8 March, 2005

 * 0:59
 * User:Ta bu shi da yu unblocked User:Dr Zen (That was not technically vandalism. Unblocking.)
 * 01:22
 * User:Raul654 blocked "User:Dr Zen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (General disruption, going against consensus, borderline vandalism)
 * 02:21
 * User:Cool Hand Luke unblocked User:Dr Zen (User has not vandalized (see narrow definition at Vandalism), and use dispute resolution procedures.)
 * This brings us up to date.

Evidence given by Cool Hand Luke
Unless evidence is brought against me, as was threatened, I don't have much to add to this. Dr Zen's edits are fairly straightforward (see Timbo's evidence).

Tony's history is excellent. However, I don't believe that the image's mere stability "confirms" a consensus as he suggests above. A significant minority exists on this issue as confirmed by the 25% dissent on a disclaimer for the page, for example. This survey characterized as a "clear consensus" above. Many users doubt that four fifths is a consensus, and the disclaimer survey failed even that. Obviously, this doesn't excuse antisocial editing. Even though the survey about inlining the image was flawed (by only offering an alternative link to an ugly diagram offsite), it's clear that no consensus could exist for having nothing. Zen's edits, until recently, completely deleted the image&mdash;without link or anything else in its place. This is a departure from, for example, Anthony's edits which only replaced the image with a link to the image.

Even if Dr Zen's edits are outside acceptable wiki norms, I believe there's still room for reasonable dissent and dialog on this issue. Cool Hand Luke  18:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)