Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

See [1], [2], and [3]. John254 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, as possibly the most egregious example, [4], [5], and [6]. John254 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. John254 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/RodentofDeath. John254 01:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no points for guessing who this attack tale refers to.

He has also used his user page to further promote his agenda in violation of the user page guidelines.

By posting on the COI noticeboard Rodent attempted to get the community to stop Susanbryce from editing the articles concerned through what I'd describe as social engineering (albeit very poorly). After his bluff was called, he places maintenance tags on the articles concerned and complains when they get removed.

Once his attempt at WP:COIN backfired very badly he tries again at WP:AN. But nobody responds.

Another instance at WP:WPSPAM from April.

the conflict between myself and susanbryce, and to a lesser degree edg, is the direct result of deliberate misinformation being put into wikipedia on articles about Angeles City and the Philippines in general.

i have deleted this section as it was too long for this page. it is now located here. i would strongly suggest going through at least some of the edits, both new and old, for examples of false and misleading information put into angeles city related articles to slander this city.

the current version of the Human Trafficking in Angeles[22] contains multiple misrepresentations of citations and blatantly false information. there has not been one documented case of human trafficking in angeles to date.

even after information in the article is corrected to reflect what citations actually say, susanbryce reverts to insert false information.[23] Revert wars are initiated by susanbryce to take out any opposition to her POV when cited facts are inserted into article.[24][25]RodentofDeath (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgarde continues to insist human trafficking in Angeles a significant problem (original research) and any attempt to correct this to a NPOV results in an edit war.[26][27]

Edgarde keeps inserting the word "however" in reference to NATO to push his POV that something wrong is happening. also makes claim of consensus when there is none.[28]

Edgarde removes well cited information that conflicts with his POV.[29]

Edgarde accuses Senator Revilla of being corrupt in edit summary.[30]

Edgarde adds attack on me hidden in other user's signature.[31]

susanbryce is the subject of a press release by the Senate of the Philippines asking her to give solid information on her claims or she will be regarded as running a smear campaign.[32]

susanbryce is the founder of an NGO in angeles.[33] WP:COI states Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest

susanbryce cites herself.[34], [35], and of course the case where she cites the Human Trafficking in Angeles article for the Angeles City article.

susanbryce makes unfounded claims of death threats, verbal abuse, etc.... then susanbryce attacks other wikipedia editors (most likely just me) by claiming they are involved in child prostitution. Since I started posting articles on wikipedia, I have been constantly attacked, verbally abused, threatened, slandered and found my email full of death threats. Yep, those involved in the dirty trade of child prostitution hate media attention.[36] RodentofDeath (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

susanbryce accuses me of supporting pedophilia and frequenting places where victims of trafficking are.[37] it shouldnt need to be stated but i find both things absolutely disgusting and anyone involved should locked up forever. with that said, removing false information from wikipedia articles on these topics is in no way supporting pedophilia or human trafficking.

See Special:Contributions/susanbryce.

susanbryce's agenda of running a smear campaign on the internet is well documented. examples of her writing both on wikipedia[38] and elsewhere on the internet[39][40][41] are clear examples of how she wishes the Angeles City article to be written.RodentofDeath (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through most of the last twelve months I have suffered from Rodentofdeath the most vile, humiliating, obsene and disgusting attacks. Ill list just a bit of these attacks Ive suffered from him... RodentofDeath labels me a lunitic, pedophille and prostitiute and barley anyone says a word, except maybe to tell him it was unhelpful. He places it as many times as ge can right across Wikipedia because he knows it stays there for ever and ever.

RodentofDeath has labelled me a pedophile, prostitute, kidnapper. one whining bitch, susanbryce is a complete nut case, she is actually a lunatic, check her medical history. check her personal page. she is a former prostitute (i am guessing at the "former" part, actually) with serious delusions.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RodentofDeath&diff=149388586&oldid=149386880

Hers what he posted on the administraors board about me.... now let's get down to specifics of what i have said about susan. she claims i have continually called her: a prostitute. the truth is i only called her a former prostitute. i only say this because it is true. it was her occupation at one time according to information she posted. she was born and raised in a brothel in a town filled with pedophiles and child prostitutes. it may even be her occupation now but i have no information about her current occupation so i will not venture a guess. an ifiot. sorry, i dont ever recall calling you an ifiot. i'm dont even know what an ifiot is. for someone that claims to be a journalist i have noticed quite a few spelling errors on your part. in case you meant idiot instead of ifiot i also dont recall calling you that either. i may have said some of things you say are idiotic and i stand by that statement. if you can find where i called you an ifiot or an idiot please post a link so i can refresh my memory on what was being discussed. a lunitic. dont recall calling you that either but i did call you a lunatic. i'm not sure what other word would be better to describe someone that thinks there are many people out to kill them, there are various government conspiracies, the media is trying to kill them, the philippine senate is against them and there are pedophiles gangs and rapists everywhere killing everyone in the city they come from. they are the only person that knows where everyone is being killed and so now everyone is out to get them. perhaps delusional would have been a better word. i actually stand by my assessment of your mental condition and i am sure others will agree (but perhaps only secretly!!). however, i do apologize not for my assessment of your mental state but for sharing my assessment of it with others. a pedophile. sorry, i dont recall ever calling you a pedophile either. i do recall calling the priest you associate with a pedophile. you know which priest i mean, right? the one that was arrested for molesting the 9 year old girl and went into hiding rather than face charges?? its a good thing he didnt have to go to trial but instead got a pardon (from a secratary of the president while he was in the process being ousted in a coup). he was then able to come out of hiding. its all very well documented somewhere but not here on wikipedia. it got deleted, oddly enough.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#response_from_rodentofdeath

Here are just only a few ip farming attacks on me. Notice the writing style here is Exactly the same as RodentofDeath, such as the constant use of the word prostitute, delusional, etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=141032472&oldid=141032227

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=141032197&oldid=140779095

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=135319441&oldid=134622830

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133585137&oldid=133584267

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133584244&oldid=133584045

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133583896&oldid=133583672

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133583317&oldid=133582757

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133582719&oldid=133582055

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&diff=133581910&oldid=133581862

"ahhh yes, susan pineda... one of the most corrupt government officials there is. also one of the most unreliable. if you recall she is the one making the outrageous and completely fictional claim that said 75% of prostitutes are children. she is also the one that tried extorting money from Richard Agnew by saying an employee in a bar he manages was now HIV positive. when he refused to pay she had his bars raided".... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City&curid=9324922&diff=174141685&oldid=174141353

My apologies for the late contribution. I didn't think it would be necessary. The following is elaborated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath#Evidence of disputed behavior.

• Frequently repeats a dismissed rape allegation against the head of PREDA, contrary to WP:BLP 2007-05-03T01:40:26 2007-04-18T01:08:21 2007-04-18T12:07:13 2007-04-23T09:47:37 2007-04-24T07:20:38 2007-04-25T07:24:31 2007-04-25T08:11:10.
  • RodentofDeath is warned 2007-04-25 on the article Talk page and User Talk:RodentofDeath, semi-agrees to stop 2007-04-25T10:27:55.
  • RodentofDeath Resumes 2007-09-19T09:21:20, 2007-12-10T00:32:59. While the latest version contains some useful information and is sourced, it is basicly a container for the rape charge.

PREDA is a favorite target for deletion, specious attacks, and general abuse from RodentofDeath.

• Declares mention of non-profit organizations (really just PREDA) spamming; rationale, it "actively solicits donations" (albeit not on Wikipedia).2007-04-23T01:06:02
• Links PREDA to unsupported claim that advocacy groups are "in error" (characteristically, to their donations page).2007-04-27T23:14:15
• Declares Human trafficking a hoax perpetuated by non-profits (again linking PREDA) to raise money. 2007-05-03T01:39:06

This is much elaborated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath#Tendentious editing and POV pushing

2007-11-24T20:58:04 Edit summary: moved official philippines government position to the top where it belongs, not buried beneath obscure opinions by one lawyer attending a conference.

• This summary refers to this citation, sourced from the Australian Law Reform Commission in a Parliament of Australia Official Inquiry, not "one" "obscure" "lawyer". RodentofDeath's argument for dismissing (and deleting[42]) this citation is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS, ignoring previous discussion on here^{2007-06-04T04:13:19}(most clearly), here^{2007-06-04T04:13:19} and here^{2007-05-21T00:28:35}. (Other examples can be provided where RodentofDeath recycles deletion excuses with disregard to previous WP:CONSENSUS, but this is the most recent.) This edit also deletes a 2nd source (Sun.Star Cebu, a Philippines news site) not mentioned in the edit summary.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.