Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Evidence

RodentofDeath has made severe personal attacks against Susanbryce
See, , and. John254 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * citation number one is not an attack (nevermind a "severe" attack). it is a statement of fact well supported by citations. the edit summary says other people on wikipedia think she is nuts, not that i do. this is completely supported if you do as i ask in the edit summary and check what the majority of people think.


 * in citations number two i call susanbryce a nut case which i admittedly shouldnt have done. i should have stated that other people think she is nuts.


 * in citation number three i defend my prior statement.RodentofDeath (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath has introduced serious WP:NPOV violations and original research into Wikipedia articles
See, as possibly the most egregious example,, , and. John254 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * this is not original research or a NPOV violation. it is well cited. it is the opinion of many on the talk pages of the Angeles City and the Human Trafficking article. actually, the only two people that insist there is human trafficking in Angeles are susanbryce and edg. they come up with not one single case of human trafficking to support this.RodentofDeath (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath has engaged in persistent, disruptive edit warring
See, , , , , , , , , , , , , , and. John254 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * my edits are factual and supported by citations. on the other hand, the reverts insert false information, original research and NPOV violations. if you wish to go through each of these edits one at a time and discuss we can.

RodentofDeath operates a single-purpose account employed primarily to edit articles related to Angeles City and human trafficking
See Special:Contributions/RodentofDeath. John254 01:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i operate one account. if there were not so much false information inserted in articles about Angeles then i would have time to edit more pages. i dont see how not having more time to spend on wikipedia should be held against me.RodentofDeath (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * John254, i fail to see how posting facts are an attack as you seem to be saying with my edit posting the contents of the press release by the Senate of the Philippines. the editor has been running a smear campaign for years and i documented that with citations. this is not an attack. it is a statement of fact. i dont see how the conclusion is reached that i am attacking her instead of the conclusion she has a conflict of interest editing the article and has now made herself part of the subject matter.


 * i also dont see how i have introduced serious NPOV violations by your examples shown. if you can provide evidence of one case of human trafficking happening in Angeles then i could see that its a NPOV violation. so far nobody has been able to provide any information on any case of human trafficking. it doesnt exist. why is saying so in the article a NPOV violation? also, i would like to point you to this version of the page which would be a much better representation of how i feel the article should be. i feel it is factual and does not have the false and misleading statements the current version has.


 * do you honestly feel the current version isnt a violation of NPOV?RodentofDeath (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * amended to add a version i was editing by using my talk page as a sandbox. i believe i made changes up through the mail order bride section.


 * how is THIS edit warring? the information i removed is false information. i removed "in 2006, Judge Pinto of the Angeles City Court found two people guilty of trafficking children in a bar in fields ave Angeles under The Trafficking in Persons Act." if you read the citation provided you will see that two filipinas were found guilty of employing minors. this is not human trafficking. also "In 2003, seven trafficking victims were rescued from Angeles City who had been kidnapped." is once again false information. 7 victims were rescued in Paranuque, which is part of Manila.


 * MER-C, the tale you are referring to is in response to this on susanbryce's page in which i give a much more logical account of her fictional tale: "I had been walking up fields ave in Angeles when I heard a young child screaming. As I looked, I saw a foreign pedophile trying to drag this young child into a car. Without thinking, I ran as fast as I could, grabbed the child and tried to make our escape. The kidnapper pulled a knife and stabbed me seven times before he drove away."


 * i will leave the racist and mental health aspects of that statement for you to decide on your own. personally, i have a problem with anyone thinking they can look at a foreigner and immediately determine they are a pedophile and then proceed to drag a child away from them, which is in all reality probably their own child. being new to wikipedia, it was pointed out the story on my user space was not appropriate and removed.


 * i also fail to see how reporting a Conflict of Interest as per wikipedia guidelines is a bad thing. I believe this is what should be done when an obvious conflict of interest, as there is with this case, is discovered.

Discredit?
it seems i have been accused of trying to discredit susan bryce. particularly, i am accused of attacking susan bryce in an article:


 * RodentofDeath edited the article Human trafficking in Angeles City to carry information attempting to discredit Susanbryce: . 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.  These edits inserted original research, being RodentofDeath's personal comments in an attempt to disprove certain contentions.

again, we seem to not be assuming good faith but so be it. i stand by everything written here. none of it is original research. look at the citations. susan bryce has been named in reputable newspaper articles as running a smear campaign. the online petition the newspaper article directs you to was written several years ago. the problem of her vilifying a city is still going on. pointing this out is original research??!!!!

human trafficking in angeles city does NOT exist. i am still waiting for anyone to show proof that it does. i can show that department of justice records say it doesnt exist.

susan does a good job of playing the victim. i understand everyone's need to think she needs protection. BUT WHAT ABOUT PROTECTION OF ANGELES CITY RESIDENTS? she is accusing 150,000 people of being prostitutes and many other vile things. the facts in this case speak for themselves. angeles isnt a slum. angeles hasnt had one case of human trafficking. there are no child sex slaves.

as i offered before, all i need (or anyone needs) is information on where this is supposed to be happening and i will be the first person to make sure justice is done. nobody except susan seems to know where these atrocities are happening and she wont share the info so it can be stopped. this is a witch hunt and nobody can find any witches.

i will leave the racist side of her comments for everyone else to decide. it seems that all the bad people are foreigners from predominantly caucasian countries. interestingly enough most tourists are actually other filipinos or other asians. all businesses in the philippines must be majority owned by filipinos by law. yet she insists that bars are 80% owned by australians and, strangely enough, "all the bars around here" are owned by an irish man.

it really would help the situation if the people here would take an objective look and add a little research into this situation. i realize that may be too much to ask though.RodentofDeath (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

response to susanbryce evidence
thanks susan for giving me more evidence of your exaggerations and flat out lies:

Through the last twelve months I have suffered from Rodentofdeath the most vile, humiliating, obsene and disgusting attacks. quite impossible since i have only been editing wikipedia for 8 months.

''RodentofDeath has labelled me a pedophile, prostitute, kidnapper. one whining bitch,....'' well, for starters, why dont you show us all the many, many times i said these things. actually, i dont recall ever labeling you as any of those things.

i have no idea what an IP farming attack is. it sure sounds sinister though. only problem is that i didnt do it, whatever it is.

i also dont have your email address nor do i want it. as i said earlier, if you are indeed getting death threats then you need to contact the proper authorities. its not me doing it. however, given your history of making claims that later turn out to be false i have serious doubts about this one.

in reference to your slander comment i wish to inform you that in order for my statements to be slander they would need to be false. my statement is not. please also note that threats of legal action, as you imply here, are not taken lightly at wikipedia. however, if ms pineda wishes to pursue legal action i would suggest she first obtain a copy of the police reports in regards to her involvement in the extortion attempt. the topic of ms pineda's credibility comes up only because susanbryce is the one inserting her as a reference for "75% of the prostitutes are children" statement. if calling local politicians corrupt is a problem then please consider the many times you have accused the local police, the NBI (philippines FBI), local government officials, the philippine national police and others of corruption and all being part of a major government conspiracy. i believe susanbryce has even accused the president of being part of a conspiracy at one time. links to susanbryce edits making these claims can be provided if this is the path we decide to go down.

susanbryce's recent addition is about g-spot bar, where two people were convicted of employing a minor. she insists that this is human trafficking. it is not. another reference for the same case from PREDA with the headline "Developments on the case of foreigners charged for employing minors in Angeles City". of course preda tries to make it sound more sinister than it actually is by also quoting other parts of the same law, not that these people were accused of those violations.

response to edguarde evidence
in reference to the defamatory attacks on Fr. Shay Cullen, i dont see how this is an "attack". it is a statement of fact. i have backed up my statements in the PREDA article with citations. also, you are in error in saying the charges are dismissed. they are not. he has not been cleared of the charges despite his personal claim to the contrary.

now i find myself in a bit of a pickle if i try to explain your next comment on me saying "user Susanbryce keeps referring to PREDA.ORG which actively solicits donations." it seems that if i give details on another editors association with that organization i could get in trouble for posting personal information about another editor. why dont we just leave it as there was an over abundance of claims that PREDA was doing great and wonderful things in Angeles when in fact they were not active here. these claims are no longer in the article and rightfully so.

now for the hoax comment. these are your words and not mine. please be accurate in describing what i say and dont put your personal slant on it. what i say is this: ''Human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines is not a significant problem. 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. Despite this fact some organizations continue to attempt to raise funds to combat what they refer to as a serious problem.'' if you can come up with a case of human trafficking happening in angeles then you may have an argument that my edit is in error. however, there has been no case of human trafficking ever happening in angeles provided as of yet. i will leave it up to you to decide what to call organizations that raise money to battle a problem that doesnt exist. personally, i think fraud would be a better term than hoax but that brings up legal complications so i will leave the name calling to you.

the next piece of evidence provided is that i moved the official reaction of the philippines government from the bottom of the page to the top. i'm still a bit perplexed as to why you think one person's account of a conference held in manila deserves to be in a more prominent position in the article than the official stance of the government of the nation. this is evidence of tendentious editing?