Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath

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.

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][1] 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.^[1][2]

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.^[3][4] 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.

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:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive245#RodentofDeath revert warring in Angeles City
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Defamatory personal attack by User:RodentofDeath
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#RodentofDeath edit warring in Angeles City

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)

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.