Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Proposed decision

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | RodentofDeath

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.


Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Susan Bryce

1) Susanbryce (talk · contribs) self-identifies as an activist for children's rights, anti-human trafficking and against child sex slavery. She identifies as the founder of "Angeles, Philippines Child Rescue Agency" in Angeles City. Her Wikipedia editing is heavily based around children's rights issues pertaining to the Philippines and Angeles City, with more than 90% of her article and talk edits being related to this topic. [1]

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A fact Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. True; however, none of it excuses RodentofDeath's behavior. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I believe that Susanbryce is a bystander in this case who would not otherwise have come to our attention. While I don't dispute that this finding is a reasonable summary of her activities here, I question the necessity of having such a finding. Reconsidering.[reply]
    Paul August ☎ 05:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Not needed. Reconsidering. Paul August ☎ 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

RodentofDeath

2)RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) has edited six articles in total, all pertaining to issues regarding child prostitution, human trafficking and children's rights in the Philippines and Angeles City in particular. [2]

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personal attacks by RodentofDeath against Susanbryce

3) RodentofDeath has made several personal attacks against Susanbryce, including this post to his userpage, which was a thinly-disguised reference to Susanbryce's post the previous day to her own userpage. RodentofDeath's post further includes claims of child kidnapping, extortion and real life stalking.

RodentofDeath has also made further personal attacks, such as "nutcase", "lunatic" and "former prostitute".

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Attacks in articles 4) RodentofDeath edited the article Human trafficking in Angeles City to carry information attempting to discredit Susanbryce: [3]. RodentofDeath's lead then read:

"Human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines doesn't exist. An smear campaign run by Susan Bryce has been active for years spreading lies about this Philippine city....

and variations thereof ([4] [5]). These edits inserted original research, being RodentofDeath's personal comments in an attempt to disprove certain contentions.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 03:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Susanbryce

5) Susanbryce has inserted original research [6] and changed the classification of city from its official status.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Certainly true of the first edit cited. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC) I don't believe it's necessary for us to go into great detail on this. We don't need extensive findings to support a reminder.[reply]
  2. Per Steve, I don't think this necessary for the case. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer to base my vote on more recent editing as well as older edits. Many editors start out by adding OR before they learn Wikipedia policies. I need to look through more of her edits before I decide. FloNight (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susanbryce used her own petition as a source

6) Susanbryce has used her petition signed "by Susan Bryce, Angeles Human Rights Watch, Angeles Child Rescue, Concerned Citizens Of Angeles", which does not satisfy RS as a source in articles [7].

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, inappropriate Fred Bauder (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Per 5).[reply]
  2. Per Steve. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Susanbryce has inserted information not shown in the source presented

7) Susanbryce has inserted information not shown in the source presented:

  • [8], The source provided says over 100k in the whole country. Susanbryce writes 200k in one city.
  • [9], not in the attached source
  • [10], source did not that incidents were "routine"
Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably mistakes, but certainly a fact. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Steve. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

RodentofDeath banned

1) RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 03:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should be indefinite. This is not an editor. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Susanbryce reminded

2) Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.

Support:
  1. Kirill 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I believe that editors should feel free to come to us with legitimate grievances without worrying that we will issue remedies against them for minor matters which would not otherwise warrant our involvement. Reconsidering after discussion with other committee members.[reply]
  2. Agree with Uninvited Co. By triggering a remedy against Susanbryce, even if quite mild, RodentofDeath somewhat discredits her, which seems to be the goal. FloNight (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Strike while I decide. Before voting on the case, I looked through her edits and did not see anything recent that was a big problem. The evidence on her seemed old. I'll take another look to be sure I'm not missing anything major. FloNight (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 05:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Not needed. Reconsidering. Paul August ☎ 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually, I hadn't finished the FoF, and just rummaging through today, I found stacks of edits with bogus sources, or self-sources from her own petition and just random links to look good which don't verify anything....I'd be surprised if there was deemed to be no problem if the diffs on the evidence page were actually read.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Susanbryce commended

2.1) Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is commended for including information about the important issue of child prostitution in the Philippines and related issues in Wikipedia, but encouraged to improve her editing skills.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Per the suggestion from Newyorkbrad (see talk), I recommend that the text excerpts quoted above be redacted in the final decision and replaced with links. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented the suggestion. Whilst it reads pretty much the same, if at all possible the Arbitrators who have supported the Finding of Fact, please scrutinise my change and the new version.
Anthøny 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I've left
Anthøny 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
At present, the following Proposals pass:
  • All Principles: (1), (2)
  • Findings of Fact (1), (2), (3) and (4)
  • Remedy (1)
–
Anthøny 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Close. I believe we're done.[reply]
  2. Close. Kirill 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Might as well since remedies and findings of fact regarding Susanbryce are likely to be unresolved and are not needed in any event. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Paul August ☎ 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. FloNight (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136070069"