This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Decorum

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard stuff. Kirill 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More standard stuff. Kirill 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even more standard stuff. Kirill 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

i would like to see this applied to Angeles City related material.RodentofDeath (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RodentofDeath has engaged in significantly disruptive editing

1)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we get a list of the NPOV violations, severe personal attacks and original research claims? i would like the opportunity to address each accusation individually. i think there are many things in this arbitration case that are being misrepresented and may be better understood if clarified. RodentofDeath (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse, per statements by me in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RodentofDeath's username

2) RodentofDeath has an inappropriate, threatening username.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is rather subjective, no? Kirill 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John254 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have no particular need to keep this user name other than to preserve the continuity of my edit history and what is going on here.RodentofDeath (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. Sillier usernames abound on Wikipedia. This username can only be considered threatening in the context of this user's actions, which should be the focus of this Arbitration. I suggest this red-herring issue be dropped. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The Rodent of Death comes to all rodents in time, welcome or not, but that does not make him threatening. Some fear him, some can not wait for him to release them from the rotating cage of life. Same for
  User:White Cat. Those, those, I can't even speak it, those last should be immediately banned, permanently, and with prejudice! Thanks to Radiant! for the invaluable User:Radiant!/Classification of admins! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Finally, let me put this avatar in evidence. Fluffy! / edg ☺ ☭ 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 editing Wikipedia indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee has traditionally limited bans to one year in duration. Kirill 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per the RodentofDeath has engaged in significantly disruptive editing and RodentofDeath's username findings, as RodentofDeath's editing has been completely unacceptable, and cannot be permitted to continue under his present username in any event. If RodentofDeath were to change his username after a temporary ban, however, he might easily evade further sanctions by significantly reducing the awareness of his prior disruptive editing. Consequently, the only viable remedy to prevent further disruptive editing is to ban RodentofDeath permanently. John254 01:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I support a ban, whether the duration is the customary one year or indefinite. MER-C 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really seen a good reason for that general self-imposed restriction of one year. Does anybody really entertain the hope this person is going to change within the next twelve months or cease their warfare? That may be realistic for puerile disruption by a fifteen-year old, but hardly in cases of hardened real-life crusaders like here. Anyway, if the committee wishes to uphold its one-year limit, let's have the sanctions proposed below concurrently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite topic ban

2) Rodentofdeath is banned indefinitely from any edits regarding Angeles City or prostitution/human trafficking in the Philippines. This includes contributions in all namespaces.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If the committee wishes to uphold its traditional one-year limit on full bans (which, personally, I don't necessarily think it should), then at least let's have this part indef. Topic bans have traditionally included indef ones, and for much lesser amounts of disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban here is equivalent to a site ban, as he has no negligible edits (less than 5%) outside this subject and shows no intention of making any. MER-C 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not true, MER-C. see [1] [2] [3] and more. The fact that i dont have time to edit other articles is due more to the abundance of errors inserted into Angeles City articles than it is anything else.RodentofDeath (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended accordingly. MER-C 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse emphatically. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restraining order

3) Rodentofdeath is placed under personal attacks parole indefinitely. In addition, he is banned from making any comments about or seeking interaction with Susanbryce.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

not a problem. i've already refrained from commenting on her for several months, i believe. typically, the only interaction i have (and wish to have) is the posting of conflict of interest notices and such.RodentofDeath (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. As above: if the committee wishes to uphold its traditional one-year limit on full bans, let's have at least this part indef. We have victims to protect here. He has been waging an online and real-life war against this person, evidently for a long time; there is absolutely no reason to expect he will have ceased that war in a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. A parole set for one year will (by all evidence) result in attacks resuming within 367 days. Parole should be applied with particular attention to Talk space appeals made to other editors. RodentofDeath often impugns Susanbryce's edits by association by soapboxing about "activist groups" and "charities"[4], as well as making attacks against unspecified persons who are obviously Susanbryce[5]; such actions should not be treated as plausibly exempt from personal attacks parole. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse also. Would this automatically include IP accounts?

talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

as i said above, i dont wish to comment on her. i do wish to inform you that it may not be worth the trouble to include IP accounts as i travel heavily and restricting IPs probably wont be worth the time and effort. it wont be a problem anyway as i plan to abide by any decisions made here.RodentofDeath (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

4) Merge Human trafficking in Angeles City with Human trafficking in the Philippines. The information used to build a case that there is human trafficking in Angeles is almost entirely based upon statistics that are actually national statistics. List the accusations of NGOs that are specific to Angeles and list them as accusations under the Angeles City section. Present a balanced response to those accusations. List all verifiable cases of human trafficking happening in Angeles (which at present is none). We also need better verification that cited information inserted into articles pertaining to Angeles actually reflects what the citations say and are not distortions of unreasonable interpretations of those citations. Watch closely editors that repeatedly distort information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee does not rule on content matters. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

proposed. RodentofDeath (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There was some discussion on this a while back,[6] but since the Human trafficking in Angeles City article never became stable,

now would spread the Human trafficking edit war into other articles, and as a demilitarized zone, Angeles City is progressing nicely. I don't think content issues are decided at ArbCom, so exactly how these articles will be re-formulated can be considered another day. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

the "sex industry" (i'm assuming you are talking about go-go bars) isnt a major part of the economy. the article you are referring to shows an obvious bias by stating so. it exists almost entirely on a several hundred meter stretch of a one lane road. something like Texas Instruments building their multi BILLION dollar plant on Clark would qualify as a major part of the economy. however, your original research into Angeles city's economy is in error.RodentofDeath (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content decisions are outside the scope of arbitration. Daniel 07:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why? the content is the root cause of this arbitration. if there was not someone with a conflict of interest running a smear campaign against Angeles we would not be having this discussion. as i posted in evidence, the problem of susanbryce vilifying a city has been going on since before i joined wikipedia and will no doubt continue even if i fall off the planet. now that i have a better understanding i agree. i previously thought we would not be discussing content.RodentofDeath (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Rummaging by YellowMonkey

Comment by Arbitrators:

• [7] - advocacy group ref. strong claim. pages needed in case
• [8] - uses own net petition as source
• [9] - death/rape every 6 seconds? 14,400 per day??? - self sourced.
• [10] - needs more speecific ref to check
• [11] - undue weight. Classified officially as 1st class even if it is govt propaganda
• [12] - OR
• [13] - ref says > 100k in all teh country, not 200k in one city of 250k!!!!
• [14] - self-referencing
• [15] - reinserts self-reference, self-petition, bogus stats
• [16] - removes info from Angeles -> increase weight of the alleged child prostitution
• [17] - puts sex tourism under "normal tourism" at the top
• [18] - more undue weight, coatracks into a page about US army and brothels
• [19] source doesnt say frequent
• [20] source doenst say that
• "removing personal attacks" they aren't

• Rummaging. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: