Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath/Proposed decision

message: I think it would be helpful to Susanbryce for this remedy to link specific policies and guidelines. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some links to principle #1 to help address this. Kirill 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susanbryce reminded 

message: Although quoting from the personal attacks with which RodentofDeath is charged gives a vivid flavor of the problematic user conduct at issue, I would be reluctant to see them quoted at length in the final decision. I suggest that the Clerk be authorized to replace the quotations with links before the decision becomes final and official. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of decision 

message: Moved from Proposed decision page. Normally, only Arbitrators and clerks edit Proposed decision pages.
:it may be helpful to keep in mind that complaints on susanbryce's activities started before i joined wikipedia and will not doubt continue if she keeps editing articles she has a conflict of interest in. an example is here.RodentofDeath (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved comment

message: how is posting the contents of a newspaper article and a senate press release original research? if someone is named in the press release and in the newspaper article how is this an attack? RodentofDeath (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: If 5 votes are now a majority as the list here on the Talk page and the clerks closing statement indicate, then the top of the page should be altered to reflect that, yes?  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldnt 6 be a majority, 5 a deadlock?RodentofDeath (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten arbitrators are active on this case (the list above is correct), so a majority is six. The implementation note contained an error and I have removed it. It will be updated when the required majority have agreed on a remedy or remedies. The Clerks apologize for any confusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority? 

message: Replying here since this item is not on the Workshop page.
===Original research by Susanbryce===
I agree the population edit is WP:OR. The change of classification edit looks to me more like a misunderstanding that an objective system of classification was in use. The Phillipines regional system for classification of cities was confusing for other editors months later..
I don't want to defend all of Susanbryce's edits, but for what it's worth, both of these edits are from 2006. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and there's more. she has a long history of claiming Angeles is a slum city even though it has been pointed out to her numberous times it is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed findings of fact 

message: I agree the population edit is WP:OR. The change of classification edit looks to me more like a misunderstanding that an objective system of classification was in use. The Phillipines regional system for classification of cities was confusing for other editors months later..
I don't want to defend all of Susanbryce's edits, but for what it's worth, both of these edits are from 2006. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and there's more. she has a long history of claiming Angeles is a slum city even though it has been pointed out to her numberous times it is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research by Susanbryce

message: ===RodentofDeath banned===
I understand the customary ban is for one year. However ...
"Should be indefinite. This is not an editor." – Fred Bauder ... there seems to be some Arbitrator support for a permanent ban. Can this please be voted on? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I guess. This comment by FloNight led me to believe this wouldn't need to be taken to both ArbCom and the Community. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd such comment, Morven this time. I'm just sayin'. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be indefinite; but we just don't do that. (If the community wishes to empower us to make permanent bans, I suppose we could live with that; but I like the symbolism of capital punishment being the prerogative of the community, not of ArbCom.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed remedies 

message: I understand the customary ban is for one year. However ...
"Should be indefinite. This is not an editor." – Fred Bauder ... there seems to be some Arbitrator support for a permanent ban. Can this please be voted on? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I guess. This comment by FloNight led me to believe this wouldn't need to be taken to both ArbCom and the Community. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd such comment, Morven this time. I'm just sayin'. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be indefinite; but we just don't do that. (If the community wishes to empower us to make permanent bans, I suppose we could live with that; but I like the symbolism of capital punishment being the prerogative of the community, not of ArbCom.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RodentofDeath banned