Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

RodentofDeath engages in sustained, habitual, and disruptive soapboxing, personal attacks, and tendentious, POV-pushing edits to several articles. He should stop this.

[edit] Desired outcome

  1. Restrictions of editing on Angeles City and Prostitution-related pages, and if RodentofDeath does not comply, immediate indefinite ban from same. Pages of concern include:
  2. Similar restrictions on comments made made elsewhere on Wikipedia (such as Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines) about these subjects and User:Susanbryce; and if RodentofDeath does not comply, immediate indefinite ban from Wikipedia.
  3. Restrictions on personal attacks made on any editor, or encouragement of other editors to make such attacks, and if RodentofDeath does not comply, immediate indefinite ban from Wikipedia.
Presumably an actual banning would require a visit to ArbCom, but restrictions decided here can be complied with voluntarily by RodentofDeath.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

RodentofDeath engages in sustained, habitual, and disruptive personal attacks (on Fr. Cullen of PREDA, and on User:Susanbryce); tendentious, POV-pushing edits to several articles (mostly by deleting information not flattering to Angeles City), and soapboxing (on all of the above).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Tendentious editing and POV pushing

  • RodentofDeath has been allowed to edit Human trafficking in Angeles City for 3 months unchallenged.combined diff The resulting, eviscerated page basically says there is no such problem in Angeles City.


  • Recent edits (by others including Susanbryce (talk · contribs)) have restored much of the deleted text, which RodentofDeath then resumed deleting with misleading edit summaries.combined. RodentofDeath's diffs (with his edit summaries in italics), in detail:
  • 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 a Parliament of Australia Official Inquiry, not "one" "obscure" "lawyer". RodentofDeath's argument is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS, ignoring previous discussion on here2007-06-04T04:13:19(most clearly; search on "seriously flawed"), here2007-06-04T04:13:19 and here2007-05-21T00:28:35. (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.
  • 2007-11-24T20:39:19 Edit summary: replace opinion (original research?) with documented fact
    • This edit removes citations from BBC, Sun.Star (Philippine news), Irish Tribune, and Unicef, so "opinion" and "original research" are not reasonable claims. The "documented fact" replacing these is repeated from elsewhere on the page; it's a military travel advisory saying to obey local laws on rape and pedophilia, telling GI's these laws are "severe" and "strictly enforced".
  • 2007-11-24T20:34:06 rmv OPINION about extent of social problem. removed unsourced opinion of sex tourist preferences
    • Removes 5 sources (the more damning ones from Inter Press Service and The Age) saying there is a problem, so that the lede section is sourced entirely from Philippine government denials.
  • 2007-11-24T15:04:36 remove reference to child sex slavery trade. finding 2 underage workers is employing minors, not a 'child sex slavery trade'
    • The trade in sex with children is well-sourced elsewhere in this article.3 4 5 (Of course these citations are deleted by RodentofDeath in this batch of edits.)
Unfortunately, misleading edit summaries and tendentious edits are typical for RodentofDeath (talk · contribs).

[edit] Personal attacks

RodentofDeath has a long history of personal attacks against Susanbryce (talk · contribs).

  • This version of User:RodentofDeath contains personal attacks on User:Susanbryce, describing an obliquely identified individual as committing acts of kidnapping and pedophila, among others. Were this page reported to law enforcement it would have been easy to locate whom RodentofDeath describes after only a few minutes of reading his other posts during that period.
    • User:RodentofDeath currently states it is a LIE that he ever "posted another editors street address", however if this somehow does not meet the standard of WP:OUTING, it is minimally an attempt to intimidate that editor.
  • Strawman attack: "is there a reason you are removing well documented facts from the page, ... and continually adding the word "slum" even though it has been proven and documented that Angeles is not a slum but a 1st class city???"2007-04-18T01:08:47 It is not too much of a stretch to say there are slums in Angeles City, but "continually adding" misrepresents User:Susanbryce's edits.
  • Inserts editor's online petition into article 2007-04-27T23:14:15 (the phrase "in error" is unsupported here). Later, demands this editor be not edit the article per WP:COI 2007-08-11T04:03:28
  • Response to WP:NPA warnings about personal attacks:

    she is actually a lunatic. i dont call people names. check her medical history. check her personal page. she is a former prostitute (i am guessing at the "former" part, actually) with serious delusions.2007-08-05T18:52:56

    More attacks of this nature exist (diffs will be hunted if requested).

[edit] Abuse of tools

Every tool can be used as a weapon. RodentofDeath uses them (instead of WP:DR) to attack User:Susanbryce

[edit] Assumptions of bad faith

RodentofDeath engages in much grandstanding in Talk:Angeles City, where a few SPA supporters cheer him on and occasionally join in the attacks. I can get more of these if needed, but scan that talk page and the most recent archive for examples of how Susanbryce is "destroying Angeles", and engaging psychotic attacks for unlikely reasons.

  • "is this because it does not fit in with your agenda of trying to trash a city based on biased and/or completely absurd figures?" 2007-04-18T01:08:47 2007-04-18T10:28:34
  • "nothing but the opinion of a few people intent on publicizing the city of Angeles in an extremely negative and unwarranted light." 2007-04-18T10:28:34
  • "...was once again put there to portray Angeles in a negative way." 2007-04-18T10:57:32

[edit] Soapboxing

  • stated agenda on user page
  • Frequent statements like these
    • "the consensus from people that actually live in angeles....susan is lying about my city."2007-04-25T16:25:14
    • "They also make unfounded claims of organized crime involvement, gang activity, girls being chained to beds and pedophilia gain sympathy to their cause and solicit donations to their groups." (sources claims, but not how such claims are unfounded, or discussing this profit motive.)2007-04-27T10:48:44
  • Attack made in another article without context, explanation or precedent, simply attacking editors contributions 2007-04-18T11:57:00, and then deleting them 2007-04-18T12:02:02 . While this sort of intrusion into other articles is not common, it does fit in with other behaviors that could be called WP:STALKING User:Susanbryce.

[edit] Attacks on PREDA

PREDA is an Philippines-based organization that works with the poor, including sex workers in Angeles. PREDA are a favorite target for deletion, specious attacks, and general abuse from RodentofDeath, who

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:CONSENSUS
  5. WP:SOAP
  6. WP:HA
  7. WP:DISRUPT
  8. WP:BLP – for PREDA rape allegations

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit] On personal attacks

  1. 2007-08-12T18:56:48 (reply)
  2. 2007-08-05T18:38:42 (reply)

[edit] Dispute resolution suggested

  1. 2007-06-03T22:36:13, (evades or refuses, with stated intention to continue personal attacks 2007-06-04T00:16:12)
  2. 2007-06-04T01:30:48 (evaded 2007-06-04T01:44:52)
  3. 2007-08-08T19:52:17 (changes the subject 2007-08-08T20:28:43

[edit] On deleting sourced information that conflicts with RodentofDeath's POV

  1. "...the sources don't support your argument here, and they are good sources.... There are plenty of sources that attest to the fact that prostitution and child prostitution is a problem in Angeles City and many other parts of the Philippines. If you claim it is not a problem, where are your sources?"2007-04-25T09:54:45
  2. "...it looks like you want opinion to take precedence over credible sources."2007-04-25T11:56:04
  3. "...it appears all you are interested in is sanitising any truth there might be there."2007-04-25T20:43:27
  4. 2007-06-04T04:13:19, 2007-06-04T21:40:55
  5. 2007-08-23T22:52:52

[edit] General

  1. 2007-06-04T03:26:44
  2. 2007-08-20T19:07:45
  3. 2007-08-23T22:52:52

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. edg ☺ ☭ 15:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Addhoc (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. MER-C 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gscshoyru (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Athaenara ✉ 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.


when factual information is provided, as is the case with father cullen, it is not an "attack" but a statement of facts. (again, he was never acquitted or charges dropped but i digress). i have not attacked anyone. i have stated facts. i have also responded in kind on other's edits when others have commented on my edits.

RodentofDeath has been allowed to edit Human trafficking in Angeles City for 3 months unchallenged.combined diff The resulting, eviscerated page basically says there is no such problem in Angeles City.

this would be because the facts state that there is no such problem in Angeles City. There has no been one person charged with human trafficking despite Eguarde's continual insertion of opinions such as "human trafficking is a significant problem. Please inform us of one instance of human trafficking happening in Angeles City.

Recent edits (by others including Susanbryce (talk · contribs)) have restored much of the deleted text, which RodentofDeath resumed deleting with misleading edit summaries.combined. RodentofDeath's diffs (with his edit summaries in bold italics).

susanbryce has a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing this article. As per WP:COI "Campaigning-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."
She has been accused by the Senate of the Philippines of running a smear campaign against Angeles City. She has been asked to provide concrete details on where any of her claims are happening and she apparently unwilling to provide the information. Senate press release
much of the deleted text was removed because it is irrelevant. for instance, food stalls for former bar workers keeps getting inserted to apparently get the quote "rape of bar staff by expatriate owners" in the article. while rape is of course very disturbing neither the former bar workers, expatriate bar owners or even rape can be classified as human trafficking.
other instances include things such as "human trafficking in angeles city is a significant problem" when in fact this is not supported by the citations given. Once again, there has not been a verifiable case of human trafficking in Angeles City.

This edit removes citations from BBC, Sun.Star (Philippine news), Irish Tribune, and Unicef, so "opinion" and "original research" is not reasonable claims. The "documented fact" replacing these is repeated from elsewhere on the page; it's a military travel advisory saying to obey local laws on rape and pedophilia, telling GI's these laws are "severe" and "strictly enforced".

the citations provided are used as an attempt to support the editors personal opinion. they do not support that opinion. that is why the opinion is removed. Once again, there are no verifiable instances of human trafficking in Angeles City nevermind enough instances to claim it is a significant problem. i dont see the necessity to have the citations remain once the opinion they were trying to support is not longer there but please correct me if i am wrong.

however," language is used because this "zero tolerance policy" may be ineffective for the reasons that follow

there is no evidence given that the policy is ineffective. in fact, stating there is a zero tolerance policy restricting NATO troops from areas of human trafficking and the fact that NATO does not restrict troops from visiting Angeles City is evidence that there is no problem.

Removes 5 sources (the more damning ones from Inter Press Service and The Age) saying there is a problem, so that the lede section is sourced entirely from Philippine government denials.

this seems to be a repeat of the above accusation where the editor was inserting their own personal opinion, not the opinion of the citations. also, there is no evidence given from any citation stating what destination pedophiles say is their favorite. i personally would love to see where that statistic comes from.

These services are targeted at survivors of the sex industry, and in context are obviously relevant. As demonstrated above, the "discussion" RodentofDeath requests has no effect on RodentofDeath's deletion.

these services do not exist. they were illegal at the start. the stalls were torn down years ago. they were targeted at former bar workers. working in a bar is not human trafficking. this shows the extreme reaches that some of the editors have gone to try to add to a verifiable smear campaign against a city and how things with nothing to do with human trafficking are inserted into this article.

remove reference to child sex slavery trade. finding 2 underage workers is employing minors, not a 'child sex slavery trade' This edit doesn't make sense, but neither does the paragraph. It needs a re-write, not a deletion. actually, it needs to be deleted. finding two minors working in a bar is not human trafficking. if you think it is then please provide evidence. dont just keep re-inserting something that is not relevant.

Unfortunately, these misleading edit summaries and tendentious edits are typical for RodentofDeath

i fail to see how the edit summaries are misleading. it seems you are not assuming good faith. my edit summaries summarize what i am doing. if you need more detail you are welcome to use the talk page. however, since most of the other editors do not discuss things on the talk page and just use the edit summaries i have decided to follow their example and have all but abandoned attempts to discuss my edits first. i am more than willing to discuss edits if someone has a comment.

Userpage User:RodentofDeath was deleted on 2007-05-30T14:33:47 for personal attacks on an unspecified but obliquely identified individual, describing them as committing acts of kidnapping and pedophila, among others. Were this page reported to law enforcement it would have been easy to locate whom RodentofDeath is describing after only a few minutes of reading his other posts during that period.

my post was a fictional response to another editors fictional story posted on their wiki page accusing someone of kidnapping and pedophilia plus attempted murder. it was the same story told from a different person's logical point of view. any claims of law enforcement trying to locate somebody is completely absurd. my story was not an attack on any individual on or off wikipedia. both stories one both pages were deleted. i have no problem with that as i am not fond of fiction anyway.
upon further inspection it seems the fictional story on the other users page is still here along with more inappropriate content.

User:RodentofDeath currently states it is a LIE that he ever "posted another editors street address", however if this somehow does not meet the standard of WP:OUTING, it is minimally an attempt to intimidate that editor.

susanbryce accused me of posting her personal address here on wikipedia. of course, i have done no such thing and i have never threatened to do so. i am simnply stating that it is a lie to say i posted her address. i do not have nor do i wish to have her address. i also take great offense to edguarde spreading the false information that i am trying to intimidate anyone.

Strawman attack: "is there a reason you are removing well documented facts from the page, ... and continually adding the word "slum" even though it has been proven and documented that Angeles is not a slum but a 1st class city???"2007-04-18T01:08:47 It is not too much of a stretch to say there are slums in Angeles City, but "continually adding" misrepresents User:Susanbryce's edits.

actually, she has continually added the words "this slum city" and similar accusations even after being told that Angeles is classified as a first class city. despite your imagination Angeles is not a slum city. here are two of the many diffs where she adds "slum" or changes the first class city rating to "slum". keep in mind she is not saying Angeles has slums (which is not worth debating at this point) but that it IS A SLUM. [1] [2]

Inserts editor's online petition into article 2007-04-27T23:14:15 (the phrase "in error" is unsupported here). Later, demands this editor be not edit the article per WP:COI 2007-08-11T04:03:28

i believe the "criticism by residents" section was added by edguarde, was it not? i added the petition as an example of obvious outrageous accusations being made by susanbryce that 53% of the total population of Angeles City are prostitutes. Susanbryce does have a clear conflict of interest and i stand by that statement. her agenda of making outrageous accusations that are statistically impossible are clearly shown by the petition so thank you for bringing it up. (sorry, i think i missed the meaning of the "in error" comment. let me know if its important).

she is actually a lunatic. i dont call people names. check her medical history. check her personal page. she is a former prostitute (i am guessing at the "former" part, actually) with serious delusions.2007-08-05T18:52:56

ok, i will admit making her mental condition and naming her former occupation was in error. the statement itself was not in error but making it public was. i guess it would have been better to point to her personal page where she says things rather than saying it myself.
  • Cleanup taskforce 2007-04-19T01:39:11
  • Fact tagging sourced statements 2007-04-26T02:37:33
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City COI report intended to suppress opposing editor.2007-11-24T11:08:37 As far as I know, the "claim" attributed to Susanbryce (talk · contribs) is made nowhere by User:Susanbryce. (It is normal for RodentofDeath to misrepresent other editors' statements.)
the cleanup task force was a newbie mistake. i incorrectly thought they cleaned up errors in content (such as statements with citations and the citations do not support the statements). this was not done maliciously but as an attempt to improve the article. i dont see how this an abuse of tools. i also tagged things that needed facts checked. this is done in complete accordance with wikipedia rules and i did this rather than simply deleting the statements. this again is not an abuse of tools. if the "claim" we are talking about is concerning her claim that she is the founder the Philippines Child Rescue Agency it shouldnt be too difficult to find. it is on her user page right now (along with the fictional story and much more soapboxing). i once again take offense to you saying it is normal for me to misrepresent other's comments. not only is this not assuming good faith but its an outright lie.

RodentofDeath engages in much grandstanding in Talk:Angeles City, where a few SPA supporters cheer him on and occasionally join in the attacks. I can get more of these if needed, but scan that talk page and the most recent archive for examples of how Susanbryce is "destroying Angeles", and engaging psychotic attacks for unlikely reasons.

  • is this because it does not fit in with your agenda of trying to trash a city based on biased and/or completely absurd figures?" 2007-04-18T01:08:47 2007-04-18T10:28:34
  • nothing but the opinion of a few people intent on publicizing the city of Angeles in an extremely negative and unwarranted light." 2007-04-18T10:28:34
  • ...was once again put there to portray Angeles in a negative way." 2007-04-18T10:57:32

i think susanbryce's agenda has been well documented since it has been the subject of newspaper articles and a press release by the Senate of the Philippines. how much more documentation could you possibly need?

Soapboxing - stated agenda on user page

i see nothing wrong with having a goal of deleting lies posted about the city i live in.

the consensus from people that actually live in angeles....susan is lying about my city

again, is there something in error about this statement? please feel free to look into what other people living in angeles claim.

"They also make unfounded claims of organized crime involvement, gang activity, girls being chained to beds and pedophilia gain sympathy to their cause and solicit donations to their groups." (sources claims, but not how such claims are unfounded, or discussing this profit motive.)

this was posted on the discussion page, not in an article. the claims of organized crime, gang activity and girls chained to beds are unfounded. for instance the claim of girls chained to bed upstairs of a two story restaurant on field avenue is a complete work of fiction. anyone is free to walk into the only two story restaurant in the area described and visit the second floor to see for themselves. this includes police who have also checked on this. do i have a web link proving this? of course not.... but then i am not trying to include this into a wikipedia article. outrageous claims such as government conspiracies, girls chained to beds, girls servicing hundreds of thousands of customers a month (in a city of only 280,000) should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources.

Attack made in another article without context, explanation or precedent, simply attacking editors contributions

this is referring to the following statement made by susanbryce:
even worse is that human rights workers in angeles are getting murdered by these gangs.
my reply of "susan, you need to state references when making outrageous claims like that. otherwise people will think you are spreading misinformation just like you did on the Angeles City page." seems completely reasonable to me. to classify this as and attack and stalking is quite franky and unjustified attack on me by edguarde.

Frequently repeats a dismissed rape allegation against the head of PREDA

yes, when PREDA is attempted to be used as a reliable source of information i point out that it is not a reliable source of information and i back up my claims. saying they are not a reliable source of information is not attacking them. backing up my claim they are not a reliable source of information is not attacking them. i state facts. the fact that rape charges were filed against head of PREDA and he then went into hiding has been proven. charges were NOT dismmissed. as i have said elsewhere there was a presidential order issued by the secretary of the President of the Philippines as a coup was going on ordering the justice department to not persue the charges. the charges were not dismissed they simply never went before a judge. this man claims they were dismissed which would once again prove him as an unreliable source of information.
my "ATTACK" on Preda consists of verifiable information with citations:

Many locals, including other churchmen, as well as foreigners who have been accused of abusing children, say Father Cullen goes too far. A Bishop accuses him of telling the children what to say in court.[1][2] Father Cullen has been accused of raping a 9 year old girl and subsequently had the President of the Philippines issue an order to the Department of Justice requiring them to not pursue the rape charges.[3][4]

this is not an attack on PREDA. it is a statement of fact.

Declares Human trafficking a hoax perpetuated by non-profits (again linking PREDA) to raise money.

what i actually said is this:
Department of Justice records show that from June 2003 until January 2005 there were 65 complaints received for alleged trafficking in persons violations in the entire nation. Not a single complaint was received for Angeles.[5][6] Despite this fact some organizations continue to attempt to raise funds to combat what they refer to as a serious problem.
i see nothing wrong with that statement and your summary of what i have said is a blatant error.

This request for comment seems more of an attack on me in an attempt to silence me from exposing the lies posted about angeles than it does an attempt to improve wikipedia.

[edit] response to merc

RodentofDeath is essentially a single purpose account for promoting a point of view: a quick glance at his contributions shows zero edits outside the area of this dispute. He comes across as someone who insists he is always right, despite input from the community which indicates that he may not be.

apparently you need to look a little harder. when i have time i edit other articles when i find errors. however, the overwhelming amount of errors inserted into articles about angeles (most of them by the same person) has taken up almost all my time on wikipedia. sorry, i have a life outside of wikipedia and have no desire to spend even more time than i already do here.

can i ask an honest question please? have any of you ever been to angeles to see first hand what it is like there? i have. i have lived there several years. i owned a business on clark airbase up until two months ago. (this business has nothing to do with bars, sex, girls, government, ngo's or anything else that would be a conflict of interest so dont even bother). i'm sure you would have a hard time convincing someone that lives in key west that snowfall is a significant problem there. especially when you can not come up with one single verifiable instance of snowfall. so the problem isnt my insistence of the problem. its that the accusation is wrong. while i am willing to go to mediation i dont really see where the compromise will lead is. are we suddenly going to compromise and snowfall is only a small problem in key west and it only happens a few times a year?

let me repeat this once again for everyone to read. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE VERIFIABLE CASE OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN ANGELES. i dont see how compromise or mediation will change that fact. someone please tell me where it is happening and i will gladly spend all my time making sure it is stopped. this would give me less time to be on wikipedia. so how is that for a compromise? just provide concrete details on where it is happening and not only will i agree that its a problem. i will also make sure it is stopped.

the reason susan seems willing to compromise would probably be due to the fact that she has nothing to lose since she is already getting caught lying and inserting false information (even as i write this false information has been insterted into the article). by compromising she would get to keep some of her lies and false statements in the article.

if susan's real agenda was to fix a problem in angeles all she needs to do is supply the information on where the problem is. nobody else seems to be able to find it. so how about that for a compromise? have susan (or anyone) tell us all exactly where there is a problem. not only will i go there and fix but i will be the first to post that there is a verifiable case of human trafficking in angeles. until this happens we seem to be stuck with misinformation such as employing a 13 year old is human trafficking when in fact it is not. this just further demonstrates she is more interested in making angeles look bad than she is about freeing the sex slaves she claims are in angeles.RodentofDeath (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i find it odd that you have trouble with me saying susan is inserting false information 3 months on. has this false information somehow become true? i would list all the lies she has inserted (as i already did on my personal page) but this would then be taken as an attack on her when in fact it is exposing her edits as lies where appropriate. for instance, go to the human trafficking article now. read her statement under the ARRESTS section on how 7 people were rescued from kidnapping in angeles. now read the citation. paranuque (or however you spell it) is not in angeles. it is over 3 hours away in manila. the people rescued neither came from or were rescued in angeles.RodentofDeath (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe i shouldnt be so hasty. i am willing to compromise on the actual location of paranuque. if susan wants to move it to angeles from manila i have no problem with that.RodentofDeath (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE TO - On deleting sourced information that conflicts with RodentofDeath's POV

  1. "...the sources don't support your argument here, and they are good sources.... There are plenty of sources that attest to the fact that prostitution and child prostitution is a problem in Angeles City and many other parts of the Philippines. If you claim it is not a problem, where are your sources?"2007-04-25T09:54:45
  2. "...it looks like you want opinion to take precedence over credible sources."2007-04-25T11:56:04
  3. "...it appears all you are interested in is sanitising any truth there might be there."2007-04-25T20:43:27
  4. 2007-06-04T04:13:19, 2007-06-04T21:40:55
  5. 2007-08-23T22:52:52

there are plenty of sources that can attest to the facts of child prostitution in angeles? great. let's hear them. you have yet to provide a citation for even one instance of child prostitution happening in angeles. you are accusing me of deleting sourced info on human trafficking in angeles from the Human Trafficking in Angeles article? ok, so what exactly did i delete? the food stalls by former bar workers that have nothing to do with human trafficking? the statement that the first AIDS case was in angeles when in reality it was in manila? the other blatant errors that have nothing to do with human trafficking? why dont you stop trying to make it personal and go back over my edits. stop discussing me and start discussing the article. you dont like me. i get it. i just dont care that you dont like me. so lets get back taking out editors opinions, the blatant lies and the irrelevant things out of the articles on angeles and start putting in facts.

also, the "conflicting with my POV" part of your statement is very interesting. my POV is that the article should be based on facts and backed up by reliable citations. i am not interested in sanitizing anything. i have already stated that prostitution exists here and that there is cyberporn here. what i'm interested in is getting rid of the lies inserted in the article. remember the claims that the Orbis Flying Eye Hospital had visited angeles hundreds of times inserted by susanbryce? the facts are it visited angeles once yet she kept insisting on inserting it as evidence that there's an overabundance of welfare groups in angeles. she now keeps insisting that people convicted of employing minors in a bar were convicted of child prostitution when they were not.

again, its a shame that i am the subject of discussion and you are trying to drag up quotes of me from april 2007 (when i first started with wikipedia) and everyone is completely ignoring the conflict of interest and blatant lies and errors inserted into articles by someone with a fairly obvious agenda. RodentofDeath (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ Foreign Correspondent - 05/06/2007: The Philippines - Priests & the Sex Mafia
  2. ^ Foreign Correspondent - 05/06/2007: The Philippines - Priests & the Sex Mafia
  3. ^ Foreign Correspondent - 05/06/2007: The Philippines - Priests & the Sex Mafia
  4. ^ http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~caspar/daily.htm
  5. ^ Statement On The 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report Of the US State Department/a>
  6. ^ http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2005/11/16/news/.center.for.human.trafficking..html

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 1 RodentofDeath (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of MER-C

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

RodentofDeath is essentially a single purpose account for promoting a point of view: a quick glance at his contributions shows zero edits outside the area of this dispute. He comes across as someone who insists he is always right, despite input from the community which indicates that he may not be. This behaviour has got to stop now, we can't resolve the dispute without it stopping.

I would go as far to say that Rodent refused to enter dispute resolution (hence my recommendation to file this RFC). In response to being repeatably asked to undertake WP:DR, in particularly mediation, he doesn't and makes sarcastic comments which demonstrate a failure and/or refusal to acknowledge that dispute resolution requires compromising on your position to reach an agreement. (On the other hand, Susan appears willing to do this). Mediation and community input are both methods of dealing with conflicts of interest, yet it is bizarre why Rodent rejects them. In fact, it appears that he has not budged one bit re: his opinion since he registered his account - he still insists that Susan shouldn't be editing those articles and that her edits are misinformation, three months on.

This version of his user page is very important and speaks for itself.

Some other tidbits:

I would suggest he edit some of the other 2.1 million articles Wikipedia has to offer in a civil, calm and communal manner. If not, then arbcom is just around the corner.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MER-C 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gscshoyru (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.