Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

A suggestion: Unless there is evidence that a user account or ip is editing in the manner of BD777 please do not focus on other users or ips. Any number of people may use an open proxy, that BD777 had access to the Halliburton proxy is a shame, I have blocked it. Those users will have to make other arrangements, but the chance is remote than any of them are BD777 as their editing histories are markedly different. Fred Bauder 14:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Mr. Tibbs

This is a list of all the personal attacks and uncivil rhetoric posted by BigDaddy beginning from his first day here to the present. Some of these entries also illustrate BigDaddy's deliberate attempts to provoke hostility, BigDaddy's attempts to manipulate the system, or BigDaddy's extremely POV edits. Most of the entries will consist only of BigDaddy's words, I think the evidence speaks for itself.

[edit] September 1

  • 15:54, 1 September 2005
    • BigDaddy edited this into the Bill O'Reilly article: "And Wikipedia is being held hostage by the biased editor GinaDane who threatens anyone trying to provide just a little balance to this left-wing hit piece on O'Reilly by accusing them of 'vandalism.' What a crock? Why isn't Media Matters, who wrote most of this entry, called out as the far left obsessively O'Reilly haters they are. I suppose you allow neo-Nazi's to edit your entry on Orthodox Judaism as well? Don't try to block me. Be reasonable and accountable in your reporting as I have a hundred IP's to choose from." [2]
  • 17:01, 1 September 2005
    • "It's hilarious if you think this nothing more than an O'Reilly hit piece masquerading as an encyclopedia entry." [3]
  • 17:26, 1 September 2005
    • "I felt it was fair considering how much O'Reilly is unfairly trashed by media matters on both their site and THIS ONE. (See Bill O'Reilly commentator)" [4]
  • 20:00, 1 September 2005
    • "But, how would you feel if you visited an entry that was so BLATANTLY biased, you'd think it was written by Al Franken and yet, EVERY SINGLE time you tried to edit it to bring balance, it was COMPLETELY erased by someone who REFUSES to take emails??? It was an act of desperation trying to communicate to what I perceived to be at worse a church-lady type who nitpicked all my comments and yet stand the far larger bias." [5]
  • 20:14, 1 September 2005
    • "Look at the Bill O'Reilly commentator entry and then lecture me on the difference between an encyclopedia enrty and a blog!!! Every day they seem to add a new distorted smear from to Neil Boortz to Cindy Sheehan." [6]
  • 20:30, 1 September 2005
    • "Thanks for the kind response. I have to tell you though that the 'church-lady' type editor who erased all my entries and wouldn't take any emails to discuss the matter, used up all my AGF. Now I just AYAAL (Assume you are all Liberals) and nothing you or anyone else has said has dissuaded me from my assumptions! :)" [7]
  • 20:50, 1 September 2005
    • "You'd think the liberals who wrote this would know better than to overplay their hand, but I guess not." [8]
  • 21:06, 1 September 2005
    • "I still can't get past the fact that no one...I mean NO ONE. has objected to this HATCHET JOB before." [9]
  • 21:17, 1 September 2005
    • "Ummm...Because EVERY time I tried to edit, it was COMPLETELY erased by that other editor. ps Thanks for trying to make me out as the bad guy here." [10]

[edit] September 2

  • 03:31, 2 September 2005
    • "I say we just get rid of the following paragraph. It's not funny in the least, even if it wasn't a lie and serves no purpose whatsoever except to take an unwarranted hit on two conservatives." [11]
  • 03:44, 2 September 2005
    • "Now, it may be a bit premature to make any harsh judgments about Franken regarding this imbroglio, but he does receive a salary from Air America and the monies originally paid to him came from their seed fund, some of which was taking food out of the mouths of orphans and widows." [12]
  • 03:49, 2 September 2005
    • "Just get rid of it. It's an unredeemable hatchet job by a left wing organization not even named as such." [13]
  • 04:19, 2 September 2005
    • "(Only subjective liberals dispute this with any fire.)" [14]
  • 04:38, 2 September 2005
    • "In fact, the reason SO MUCH CRAP is discussed back and forth about this page is because sane people have to stop the FLOOD OF HATE spewed at Ann that liberal wik's want to include in her entry." [15]
  • 04:42, 2 September 2005
    • "It's almost like it's their religion to hate Ann Coulter and no one is gonna stop them! ... Pss It's LAUGHABLE that you guys posted two of the WORST photos of her ever taken in this entry. I guess it was by accident, huh?" [16]
  • 04:57, 2 September 2005
    • "Every time she says something you liberals don't like, you blow it out of proportion by a factor of 100 in an effort to hurt her career. And you do the same thing to Karl Rove and all your other 'bogeyman.' ... Your great hate is apparently driving some of you insane. ... It pretty much says everything about the wacko who included this, huh?" [17]
  • 05:15, 2 September 2005
    • "If you want to spew your vicious hatred for Ann Coulter, just go to democraticunderground.com. Leave the encyclopedia for the grown ups to work out. " [18]
  • 05:22, 2 September 2005
    • "And you know what happens when you get articles written by a group comprised of about 80% Liberals proclaiming a neutral point of view???" [19]
  • 05:24, 2 September 2005
    • "Sadly, this is not only true of Ann's entry but that of Bill O'Reilly and undoubtedly countless other 'enemies of the left.' I can't wait to see Mel Gibson's page. lol!" [20]
  • 13:37, 2 September 2005
    • "He is most simpicato politically with Arianna Huffington. That's almost his idealogical soulmate. He endorsed her gubernatorial candidacy and they agree on almost anything...especially their irrational abject HATRED for most Republicans. ... Maher is the most vicious and villainous of lefties. But, because I'm not your typical biased left wing Wiki editor, I don't suggest we include that in his encyclopedic entry." [21]
  • 13:56, 2 September 2005
    • "Ps Sheesh, this place is so far left, they don't even realize how left they are. And for those who say 'there's no liberal cabal' I say -nice dodge. I never insinuated a 'cabal.' I simply said just about every editor I've encountered since I've been here, albeit a VERY short time, IS A LIBERAL. Yet NOT ONE will admit it. They just dodge the issue. That's a sure sign. And the conservative pundits are SAVAGED while the Al Franken and Bill Maher are treated with kit gloves, respecting how 'they feel' about things." [22]
  • 14:00, 2 September 2005
    • "As it stands now, the liberal pundits get treated pretty well. I hope I can soon say the same for the conservatives." [23]
  • 14:08, 2 September 2005
    • "I have no dog in this fight but I have to say it's hysterical and so typical of liberals. They will fight to the death on every...single...point...if they feel it can diminish one of their adversaries. In this case SP just can't STOMACH the possibility of Ann being elevated to a 'consitutional' attorney. It's like the Bill O'Reilly page where they spend COUNTLESS words debating whether or not he ACTUALLY came from Levittown. These arguments are instigated and fueled by liberals. Church lady liberals as I call them. They just nit pick the tinies little things in order to 1) prove someone a 'liar' or 2) diminish their standing." [24]
  • 15:06, 2 September
    • "Look dude or dudette, I have no intention of getting into a pissing war with you. I called you out as a liberal and you copped to it. That puts you WAY ahead of most of the other liberals in here. But please don't run that game on me that I'm seeing 'devils behind doorknobs.' I'm two jumps ahead of you there, buddy. Unless you wish to deny the editors in here are mostly liberals. Do you??? (Watch him try to re-define liberal ala John Kerry.)" [25]
  • 15:38, 2 September
    • "That is factual documented evidence. Of course liberals will say 'Who are you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?' lol! ... (Unless you just want wik to be a liberal propaganda site.)" [26]
  • 18:31, 2 September
    • "Oh, you want me to love the sinner but hate the sin, huh? Sorry, if this place were edited by 80%+ Born Again Christians, it'd be laughed off the internet as any kind of repository for nPOV info. The same holds true if it's the other way around. I haven't made any final judgements yet, but it sure seems that way." [27]
  • 18:36, 2 September
    • "Hip's a liberal straight up. A FAIR liberal to be sure, but a lefty. The proof: Easy. He won't say what he is. That's a dead giveaway 80% of the time. Conservatives (or right of center folk, etc) don't mind the transparency. For liberals, they somehow think if they play fair (at least from their perspective) it doesn't matter. They actually think they're fooling people but I can sniff them out a mile away. That's why Hip is always trying to steer me away from the editor. He's got a point, but at some juncture you have to ask yourself, if SO MANY of the editors are liberal, then why does Wik even posit itself as nPOV?" [28]
  • 23:35, 2 September
    • "For the THIRD FREAKING TIME, I corrected the cite about Ann and racism (which is a crock and shouldn't even be in there at all except Wik is CONTROLLED by liberals. ) There is no reason, except Wikipedia is just another domain name for Democratic Underground, to remove this correct, thorough and much more FAIR entry." [29]
  • 23:38, 2 September
    • "And her larger point, which you would get if you weren't such nitpicking church ladies is that Canada used to be much more of an ally and indeed they were in VNam era sending non-combat troops which they did not do in Iraq." [30]
  • 23:58, 2 September
    • "If Wik is going to fulfill it's mission it just CAN'T be another left wing screed site. And everytime I tried to correct this cite, it got erased ALMOST immediately. ... That is the OLDEST trick in the liberal smear book." [31]

[edit] September 3

  • 00:01, 3 September
    • "Sheesh, whether it's Ann Coulter or Big Daddy, liberals just can't help from sliming people, huh?" [32]
  • 00:03, 3 September
    • "If it wasn't for you, and maybe someday me, Wikipedia IS Salon. Ps I think they draft their editors from metafilter." [33]
  • 00:17, 3 September
    • "The liberals have tried to turn this into a left wing blog. ... I edited out that last comment from her about his show. It was TOTALLY gratutious, mean-spirited and hateful. IOW, it's completely consistent with the way non-liberals are treated here in Wikipedi! lol!" [34]
  • 02:06, 3 September
    • "And it shows how DEEP and PERVASIVE the liberal SLIME MACHINE really is. ... She suggested they be converted to Christianity. And that, in the eyes of a liberal, is an unforgivable sin! lol! [35]
  • 02:24, 3 September
    • "Don't worry Hip. I'm have no plans to go to Franken's site and trash him the way liberals trash O'Reilly. It's just not in my makeup. I guess that's just a liberal thing..." [36]
  • 14:04, 3 September
    • "But, I'm not gonna fight you on this scandal. Smearing commentators is more the stock and trade of liberals (see Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly's articles for details.)" [37]
  • 14:12, 3 September
    • "If you don't think that, at present, there's just a few reasonable people fighting off an ONSLAUGHT of liberal bias in the articles pertaining to non-liberal commentators, then we're just not reading the same Wikipedia. If you look at the talk page for Ann Coulter and see the nitpicking, church-lady, vicious attacks on her about why she's such a liar and makes stuff up and all the typical boilerplate liberal caluminty, it makes you wonder if you're on Wik or dailykos.com" [38]
  • 14:33, 3 September
    • "Media Matters is a church-lady run nitpicking FAR left organization that's dedicated to slime and spooge conservatives (but completely ignore democrat missteps) as some sort of bizzare repentance ritual by it's founder David Brock to expunge himself of the sin of once being a Republican. ... Ps The reason we don't go to Al Franken and garbage-collect a bunch of sleazy quotes about him is that sliming people is not what conservatives do. That's more the stock and trade of liberals. " [39]
  • 14:44, 3 September
    • "But I'm not a liberal who, under the auspices of 'just wanting to present facts' slimes and denigrates people in their encyclopedic entry. I'm a conservative." [40]
  • 14:59, 3 September
    • "It's a non-issue. She's said far worse things. And she does it to get a rise from brain-dead knee-jerk liberals. Is that who's in charge of Wikipedia? BTW...can ANYONE...even the most rabid left wing editor (and I know there are plenty of you out there :) justify the inclusion of the following paragraph in an article about Ann Coulter???" [41]
  • 15:59, 3 September
    • "Look, I know most wik's are liberals and I know liberals HATE Pat Robertson with ALL THEIR HEARTS if for no other reason than he's a rich, powerful white man who has led thousands of people into born again Christianity. I mean, for a liberal, what's NOT to hate? lol! Seriously though, try to remember, this is an encyclopedia, not the bulletin board of your local ACLU chapter's website." [42]
  • 16:08, 3 September
    • "God, you guys HATE Pat Robertson." [43]
  • 16:10, 3 September
    • "The one being used is actually a pretty good one. I'm surprised you guys don't have him pictured with horns and a tail!" [44]

[edit] September 4

  • 04:01, 4 September
    • "To whomever is reverting my edits...QUIT IT!!! ... And no, HATING PAT ROBERTSON WITH ALL YOUR HEART does not make you qualified." [45]
  • 04:20, 4 September
    • "For this and other reasons I request that you relinquish the editing responsibilities (if you currently have any) of this page to people less filled with rage AT Pat Robertson Christianity and God." [46]
  • 04:38, 4 September
    • "For you to exicse that because of PATHETIC, PALTRY, nitpicking reasons like the ones you stated suggests you are a walking POV masquerading as a concerned editor..." [47]
  • 10:23, 4 September
    • "What I am alleging (and will be ecstatic if proven wrong but so far no one has even offered ONE factual argument against my thesis, only lecturing me to ignore or not worry about it) is that the editors are OVERWHLEMINGLY liberal and, they hide behind a thin veil of 'objectivity' to allow BLATANT smears and attacks on non-liberals. ... All this says to me that those folks are completely UNqualified to be editors." [48]
  • 10:41, 4 September
    • "You church-ladies who worship at the holy tabernacle of 'Ann is a liar' got all excited and slammed her over it." [49]
  • 10:53, 4 September
    • "It don't matter anyway, all your attempts to prop up Sheehan have blown up in your face. Man, that Matt Drudge really sucks, doesn't he??? lol!" [50]
  • 11:05, 4 September
    • "A non-liberal's article will be CHOCK FULL of every little nitpicking thing a liberal things they can slime them with. It's pathetic but reasonable people know they can't trust Wik in it's present state." [51]
  • 11:24, 4 September
    • "Don't ask me why the HELL Wikipedia is trashing rush limbaugh in an article on Cindy Sheehan. I guess it's just comes naturally, huh?" [52]
  • 21:56, 4 September
    • "I KNOW Robertson. These HATERS don't." [53]
  • 22:00, 4 September
    • This is evidence of an attempt by BigDaddy to game the system. "If this doesn't get corrected I'm gonna have to report your revisions as bias." [54]

[edit] September 5

  • 13:51, 5 September
    • "My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left. Sheehan as Rosa Parks??? I guess it just goes to show you can't change reality by manufacturing a fictional narrative in an encyclopedia, huh?" [55]
  • 14:26, 5 September
    • "I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities) called Jonah Goldberg a 'she' (liberals have always had a hard time with that gender identity stuff) and basically just didn't make any sense. Also, and I'm sure much to the chagrin of the liberal editors here, I took out most of those nasty vicious ad hominem attacks that you guys just love to smear Coulter with (even in her encyclopedia entry.)" [56]
  • 14:54, 5 September
    • "I know...I know... you guys CAN'T STAND the fact that the (liberal) Time Magazine vindicated Coulter in the 'Were troops sent to IndoChina/VNam?' debate and that McKeown was HUMILIATED on national TV by showing he knew less about HIS country's history than that 'she-villain' Ann Coulter. lol!" [57]
  • 17:37, 5 September
    • "He ownly disowned her in the wonderful world of Wikipedia where, a liberal democrat can do no wrong and a Christian is always the bad guy. ... All you liberal editors protestations to the contrary, the SOLE purpose for including this is to make the daughter look like a NUT and to invoke more sympathy for her dad." [58]
  • 18:01, 5 September
    • "THIS QUOTE WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY SOME DERANGED LIBERAL EDITOR." [59]
  • 18:23, 5 September
    • "I am beginning to question your abilities as an editor at Wikipedia. You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension and in addtion to an obviouls lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack. I'm just questioning how you could write the above and be serious. ... You liberals are insane!! You are so DRIPPING WITH HATE FOR FOX NEWS that you can't even mention Roger Ailes without cheap shotting him? ... Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health..." [60]
  • 18:59, 5 September
    • "Of course it HAS to be included in Wikipedia, where we hunt slime on non-liberals day and night in order to include the details in their ENCYCLOPEDIA entries. lol! ... As usual, in their rush to diminish non-liberals, whichever Wik editor wrote this wasn't very crisp about the whole thing." [61]

[edit] September 6

  • 02:14, 6 September
    • "The only people who should be embarassed are the liberal editors of this piece who let this slam shot stay in for however long it did." [62]
  • 02:28, 6 September
    • "Wow! this place IS a second home for the MetaFilter clan...er Klan." [63]
  • 02:34, 6 September
    • "That kind of information is more relevant than a pr fluff piece about Chavez. But, of course, including this information would put Robertson in less of an unflattering light and we can't have that, can we?" [64]
  • 02:40, 6 September
    • "Again, pay attention all you haters: ... So, this is just more gratuitous hateful slime from some egregiously liberal contributor and that's why it's gone." [65]
  • 03:32, 6 September
    • "And a big 'I'm Sorry' in advance to my liberal brothers and sisters in Wikipedia if this doesn't comport with your 'Chavez isn't that bad of a guy' worldview." [66]
  • 04:22, 6 September
    • "Don't you know that the liberal editors at Wikipedia feel it is their MISSION TO "discredit O'Reilly as a TV commentator"?? Do you know why, as you put it, "Most of these little excerpts seem to be deliberately created to pose even more embarassment on Bill O'Reilly."? It's because THEY ARE!!!! Perhaps, after a little re-programming at the liberal university of some Wikipedia's liberal editor's choice, you'll be able to see the light and recognize that, for many people at Wik, UNFAIRLY trashing conservatives is what it's all about..." [67]
  • 06:18, 6 September
    • ""Politically poisoned atmosphere"...Hmmm...Wonder what kind of politics he's talking about? LOL~!!!" [68]
  • 06:24, 6 September
    • This is also evidence of trolling: "Hey Liberal Wik Editors... Great news! I found something you might like even better than Wikipedia. It's an exciting new on-line encyclopedia inspired by Wik but...well...a better fit. Here's the link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Main_Page I think a lot of you would feel more comfortable there... Just being helpful," [69]
  • 13:34, 6 September
  • 13:47, 6 September
    • "Oh yeah, they just LOVE republicans at DailyKos. Kind of like the love they receive at Wik! ... I guess this is all just a coincidence, huh???" [71]
  • 14:01, 6 September
    • "Big Daddy eliminated the COMPLETELY USELESS comments about sex, Maher and Coulter. Maher (and his legion of fellow liberal wanker/haters) WISHES he could get next to someone as hot as Coulter." [72]
  • 14:10, 6 September
    • "NOTE to liberal haters: I know you missed those days on PI when a republican was made to look like a fool by trying to simultaneously debate 4 dailykos-type lefties. But that shows been off the air for years. You need to let it go...lol!" [73]
  • 14:16, 6 September
    • "Wow! Even a liberal hater admits she got it first. Although he is somehow mysterously able to discern it was by accident. As for the rest of your drivel...well...You should have quit while you were BEHIND! lol!" [74]
  • 14:29, 6 September
    • "Fo shizzle, my Kizzle. I always knew in my heart that, in Wikipedia, any conservative voice would be considered a troll. Thanks for confirming my suspcion. BTW, do you libs all get the same talking points? I never suggested a left wing cabal. You guys aren't smart enough to form a cabal. Yet this is the second or third time a Wacky Wiki has falsely accused me of such. ... Ps Was he a 'troll' to?? lol!" [75]
  • 14:58, 6 September
    • "Since I've been here (all of 4 days) I've been called everything from an asswipe to flaccid to you name it. I can't figure out why. All I did was suggest the editors were too liberal in general. I guess trashing and marginalizing conservatives is just part of the Wik culture, huh?" [76]
  • 17:05, 6 September
    • "I don't see why the liberal editors in here can't realize that Ann PUNKED them out!" [77]
  • 17:10, 6 September
    • "Of course I do. Cause liberals don't like having their little hegemony upset. I don't upset the conservative editors. They send me letters of gratitude. Hmmm...." [78]
  • 17:27, 6 September
    • "So, and forgive me for actually wanting to get to the truth of the matter...I know that is so un-Wik when it comes to Ann Coulter, I went to google and type in "" [79]
  • 17:40, 6 September
    • "That IS the point and all this church lady nitpicking is attempting to distract from that. It's liberal editing at wik 101." [80]
  • 17:55, 6 September
    • "By your non-action prior to my arrival, you implictly endorse the absolute hatchet jobs being done on the articles on Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter (for example)" [81]
  • 18:29, 6 September
    • "It is ESPECIALLY RELEVANT since, as is their manner, the liberal editors in here feel COMPELLED to challenge any of Ann's assertions with some of their own from discredited far left wing websites." [82]
  • 18:40, 6 September
    • "Ps Liberals....they really do want Wik to slant left...don't they??" [83]
  • 19:30, 6 September
    • "TRANSLATION: The other liberal editors in here, which are legion, are just hoping I'll burnout and go away like so many conservatives before me. Fat chance, sister." [84]
  • 19:40, 6 September
    • "Ps While it's been sorta fun sparring with you Hipocrite, you really are no match for me. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you now. Perhaps you can recruit some reinforcements from this 'Silent Majority' you mentioned to make it a little fairer? Just trying to be helpful," [85]
  • 23:14, 6 September
    • "But the main point is that THIS HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in an encyclopedia entry and the SICK liberals who keep inserting it after I take it out will NOT win this debate. ... I've long been satisfied that frustrated sexuality is the underlying current that fuels at least 80% of all the hatred and rage spewed at Ann. I guess this just helps confirm it, huh?" [86]

[edit] September 7

  • 02:55, 7 September
    • "I'm only guessing, but I THINK this 'brain surgeon' is referring to Ann's recent comments about New York CITY that it's citizens would 'surrender' if attacked by terrorists. ... Wow!...you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand...dontcha?" [87]
  • 02:59, 7 September
    • "Here's a guess. In their NEVER ENDING attempt to make Pat look like a nut, the liberal editor who included this PREPOSTEROUS statement...had it backfire!" [88]
  • 03:09, 7 September
    • "Ps Here's a hint. Liberals LOVE to call Christians hypocrite. But, of course, it's impossible to call a liberal a hypocrite on moral matters because they presumably don't have any standards to begin with." [89]
  • 07:43, 7 September
    • "For those of you who have following this saga, it's clear that hipocrite has completely disqualified herself as any kind of objective voice and his quickly descended into engaging in a petty tit for tat game with me. ... But then going forward, every time some liberal kook decides to trash the O'Reilly article by adding yet another nitpicking cheap shot to the endless litany already included, at least people will understand why..." [90]
  • 14:54, 7 September
    • "But, though you should be BANNED for Wikipedia for your unconscionable behavior and dereliction of duty to uphold Wik articles as nPOV in this and many other articles, I'll leave that decision to others whom I've also made aware of your crusade against me." [91]
  • 15:55, 7 September
    • "And you guys don't get Christianity. (Other than you HATE Roberston's version. And probably any legitimate version as well.) ... You might have better luck trying that argument in metafilter. I see thru insincere drivel like this as if it was saran wrap. ... But it doesn't work since these allegations happened BEFORE he was a Christian and your INSISTENCE that this uterly gratuitous hearsay be included ,along with the VANDALIZING of my edits, PROVE just how vicious and hateful your agenda is. They're coming out..." [92]
  • 16:13, 7 September
    • "I want to know which editor(s) keeps VANDALIZING this page so I can report you. Which editor keeps PUTTING BACK IN that slime, sleaze and speculation about Roberston?" [93]
  • 16:21, 7 September
    • "Right, we only cite LEFT WING crackpots in Wikipedia. Never right wing ones..." [94]
  • 16:25, 7 September
    • "Jmabel's PHONY offer of 'good faith' is below. The reason it was rescinded in less than 24 hours is cause I saw thru it and called him out. Naturally, he high tailed it. Thanks for saving us BOTH a lot of time." [95]
  • 17:59, 7 September
    • "The only thing the editors of this article want to work together on is how to slime Pat Robertson without making it seem like they're sliming Pat Robertson." [96]
  • 18:10, 7 September
    • "Put it back in and I'll report you as DELIBERATELY slandering her. ... As it stands now...this paragraph is pure bs. Take your Coulter hate to dailykos. This is a nPOV encyclopedia..." [97]
  • 21:24, 7 September
    • "Oh if you're sensitivites were as strong for the subjects of the articles in this encyclopedia as they are for your fellow liberal editors. ... Finally, there are TONS of people working in Wikipedia who HATE ANN COULTER WITH ALL THEIR GUTS. Don't ask me why...my guess it's some kind of pyscho-sexual thing with them. It's usually men and it's probably because all their life they've been rejected by smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter and when one appears on the air and it turns out she's conservative, it makes their entire life seem meaningless as they've spent it all trying to be as liberal chic as possible to ATTRACT smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter." [98]
  • 21:29, 7 September
    • "So, I'm in constant touch with someone in a supervisory role, to make sure I'm following Wik protocal because I know the liberal editors in here have a practice of SELECTIVELY accusing conservatives of POV while leaving in vicious politically-motivated diatribes about conservatives permanently enshrined throughout their articles. (This NY HIT PIECE is a good example.)" [99]

[edit] October 1

  • 00:40, 1 October
    • "Don't ever come on my page again. Certainly not with your false and slanderous accusation that my REMOVING vandalism from the Ann Coulter page is in fact vandalism. That vandalism that I removed was in accordance with Wikipedia standards. I suggest you review them." [100]
  • 00:54, 1 October
    • "I didn't. POS = 'Partisan Opposition Slime' in the circles I travel. Perhaps, in your world, where it's acceptable to vandalize articles on the President of the United States with photos of a pierced penis, it means something else.." [101]
  • 00:58, 1 October
    • "Ps And save your lectures about 'community' for someone who doesn't see thru your transparently partisan interest in interjecting bias into wikipedia articles in direct violation of founder Jimmy Wales edict that these articles remain fair and neutral. Thanks and have a great night!" [102]
  • 01:12, 1 October
    • "Introducing material that doesn't support a slanderous charge in order to slime a conservative? I'm shocked that someone so objective would disagree with my rightful decision to correct this unfortunate situation provoked by a page vandal. Please don't aid and abet page vandalism as you have. Thanks and have a great evening! !!!! Ps Your post also contains about 3 personal attacks. I'm wondering if you could perhaps become accustomed to expressing your opinions without lowering yourself to such unsavory tactics. I wish you well" [103]
  • 01:27, 1 October
    • "I appreciate your candor in confessing to making personal attacks in violation of all the principles of Wikipedia especially Jimmy Wales stated desire that we build community. Now, will you follow that confession with genuine heart-felt repentance? I am believing you can and support you all the way in this regard. Good luck!" [104]
  • 06:52, 1 October
    • "I'm beginning to feel like I'm Karl Rove! lol! Well, with the addition of this what seems to be very disturbed individual to the mix of other obviously bothered stalkers, church-ladies and Posters of Pierced-Penis Photos on Presidential Pages, I think I can make a case that Wikipedia ought to offer free health care. Or at least open up a free mental health clinic. Love" [105]
  • 06:56, 1 October
    • "Doing the math, I think it's now up to 10 scared-out-of-their-wits liberal POV warriors vs me. Hmmm...time to bring in the reinforcements. For their side. LOL!! Your pal" [106]
  • 07:13, 1 October
    • "Good response. I wonder though if speaking rationally to people so clearly irrational in their abject hatred of Ann will work. You see what it's gotten me so far! lol! Thanks again though. But, do keep an eye on this page. The "She loves McVeigh" crowd in here, are not trying to be fair. It seems they just want exact vengence Ann Coulter. I wish they'd extend some of the good faith towards Ann Coulter they're always demanding others have of them" [107]
  • 07:20, 1 October
    • "'Dude' I understand you're an administrator? Could this possibly be true? If so, I assure you that you will be judged by a much different (and far stricter) standard for your defense (and reinsertion of) what's now been established as indefensible propaganda and slime (by the very sources you used to defend it.) Not to mention the slanderous accusations of page vandalism you leveled against me, for simply trying to restore this page to Wikipedia standards. But I do wish you good luck in whatever consequences you'll inevitably have to face. Cheers!" [108]
  • 07:42, 1 October
    • "The one incident that will likely get you banned however is smearing me as a white supremicist for following Wikipedia protocol." [109]
  • 07:58, 1 October
    • "Don't be afraid of me, my son. I'm here to help you. There are plenty of support groups these days. What you're suffering doesn't have to torment you the rest of your life. Society no longer stigmatizes people like you. We all just want you to get better. Love," [110]
  • 08:08, 1 October
    • "I would expect you to promptly cite an example of this or else immediately apologize and desist from such harassing behavior against me or anybody else with whom you have an axe to grind in the future. Thanks and have a great rest of the day!" [111]
  • 08:10, 1 October
    • "Ps Calling a far left winger a 'far left winger' is not a personal viewpoint. I would refer you to the Clinton article where critics are often (and with great vigor) labeled far right. Perhaps you should start your lecturing circuit there." [112]
  • 08:24, 1 October
    • "Here's just a tiny example of articles you let slide (presumably for months if not years) while singling me out within seconds. I sense a double standard in your evaluation as affirmed by your 'noticing' some long discredited phoney baloney rfc yet ignoring the personal vicious attacks made by others on my Talk page just tonight. How does one become this myopic?" [113]
  • 08:36, 1 October
    • "LOL! If there's one thing I've learned in my exciting month at Wikipedia, it's that it's not possible to work "within consensus" when there's ten foaming at the mouth vicious mean-spirited left wing haters in here for every reasoned conservative. Just go to the gentle Paul Klenk's page for details. There's not a man in Wikipedia who's bent over backwards more for the sake of building 'consensus' only to get it slapped back in his face. Interestingly enough some of his best work was cleaning up the Coulter page before it was vandalized tonight. How much more ironic is it then, that the first time I hear from you is when I'm in the process of restoring balance to Paul's excellent work. There's a hidden message in there somewhere. lol!" [114]
  • 08:46, 1 October
    • "Thanks for this. I've indicated to ngb that there was a POV stalker following me, but this post makes it unnecessary to have to prove my point! lol!" [115]
  • 08:52, 1 October
    • "LOL! These guys don't get it. If you try to present fairness and balance, they will treat you like Karl Rove who of course is their hate-surrogate for President Bush who ultimately is their hate-surrogate for Jesus. I knew that going in. And I really hate to toy with them like this, but there's not much you can do with irrational people. Trust me, reason does not work. lol!" [116]
  • 08:58, 1 October
    • "Since I'm just a 3rd generation hate-surrogate target, their bluster is pretty mild. After all, look what they did to Jesus... Ps I knew all this going in. Have had TONS of experienced with these types of disturbed individuals." [117]
  • 09:14, 1 October
    • "But, to summarize my general feelings about the inclusion of this piece: What a horrific load of nonsense! I will admit it's a lot fairer than when it first appeared as basically page vandalism. But (and these next comments are ONLY directed to people who are able to see the forest for the trees) this back and forth between the Wall Street Journal and Eric Alterman and back to the Al Franken by way of the Right wing news just makes this piece laughable. And when a Wikipedia article becomes a farce...I don't like it." [118]
  • 09:17, 1 October
    • "for President Bush who in turn is their hate-surrogate for who they ultimately hate most - Jesus." [119]
  • 09:19, 1 October
    • "But the closer you go up their food chain, it gets pretty nasty. They vandalized Karl Rove's house, threw a live grenade at President Bush and don't forget what they did to Jesus" [120]
  • 09:23, 1 October
    • "Now that's what I call a 'Cry for Help!' LOL!" [121]
  • 11:32, 1 October
    • "Big Daddy doesn't make low quality edits. But he's happy to revert them when made by liberal POV warriors." [122]
  • 12:04, 1 October
    • "Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempts to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem', help vindicate my thesis far more elequoently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks." [123]
  • 12:07, 1 October
    • "hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around," [124]
  • 16:56, 1 October
    • "Finally, none of this will make sense to the irrational Ann haters (like Eric Alterman)who's only objective is to poison her reputation by twisting every joke she makes into some sort of religious fatwa." [125]

[edit] October 2

  • 02:16, 2 October
    • "If you think I'm joking, please go to the Ann Coulter talk page. Note that, although I wasn't involved whatsoever, Coulter-hating page vandals" [126]
  • 02:27, 2 October
    • "Because I sure don't. What I see are left wing POV warriors that needed no provokation ganging up on some conservative editor and willfully violating rules in order to smear a conservative commentator. ... Other conservatives had had to deal with hateful vindictive liberal editors who nitpick their every move." [127]
  • 03:23, 2 October
    • " If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to SMEAR Ann Coulter unfairly... ... Ethically bankrupt individuals then proceeded to misrepresent these quotations as the very sort of 'leftist hate speech' which Alterman had created them to show the non-existence of." [128]
  • 03:28, 2 October
    • "Now I understand why your contributions here are so...um...misguided. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be negative. It's supposed to fairly expose BOTH sides of the story. Even in the criticism section which is not another term for spewing out all the hatred you can think of for a columnist you have personal animus for." [129]
  • 03:29, 2 October
    • "Also, the Clinton page is a good model for how to treat the kind of utter slime some people seems hell bent on poisoning this article with." [130]
  • 03:31, 2 October
    • This is a list of all the comments BigDaddy removed from his talk page: [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] ( Some of the comments he didn't just remove, he replaced the comment with a personal attack. He was subsequently temporarily banned. [141] )
  • 03:38, 2 October
    • "Great! I hear these kind of things backfire when they're filed for transparently obvious political reasons..." [142]
  • 04:03, 2 October - edited by BigDaddy 04:05, 2 October
    • "Update: Just checked with an important source. I guarantee you this attempt to silence me from addressing the endemic bias in Wikipedia will backfire. I guarantee it. :)" [143]
  • 04:32, 2 October
    • "See what I mean. He just had to stalk my every post which, if you look here [144] you'll see is harrassment. This is what I've had to deal with. He's even been warned by people who agree with him politically but he...just...can't...stop...stalking. And btw, I absolutely have not been doing as this stalker suggests. It should be quite easy to prove. I'm, amazed at how delusional people get when they are so enraged with hate." [145]
  • 07:28, 2 October
    • "Now what's interesting and certainly ill-advised is how much passion those who want to keep Wikipedia mired in bias by censoring me put into the 'Back and forth and forth recriminations' part in their statements section. It's as though they don't think the arbs are intelligent enough to understand what's going on." [146]
  • 07:45, 2 October
    • "He thinks you are me. Hate can do this to a person's cognitive faculties! Ps Since I provided a reasoned legit explanation and context for my re-write, and no such counterclaim were provided other than childish mocking which are duly noted, the edit will go back in again. Any attempts to be revert t will be considered a second step towards a RRR violation." [147]
  • 07:53, 2 October
    • "I don't have to put you on. These ann-haters write stuff, I couldn't make up if I tried. lol!" [148]
  • 13:54, 2 October
    • "As promised in my guarantee above. I did in fact address the endemic bias in Wikipedia. More on my comments later. Those who attempted to silence me through their long established pattern of distortions and hostilities against not only me but other conservative editors like the one working side by side with me on the Ann Coulter page, we're proven to be unfruitful in their efforts." [149]
  • 18:29, 2 October
    • "Thanks Gator. It's amazing that someone who so grotesquely violated everything that Wikipedia stands for by potentially exposing 3rd and 4th grade schoolchildren to an explicit photograph of a pierced male penis simply to punish them for looking up President Bush in Wikipedia, is lecturing anybody about anything. least of all grammatical construction. lol! I'll be deleting his laughable attack in a few hours before his actions go beyond just amusing nonsense and back to the pornographic destructive patterns that are so much a part of his troubled posting history. I think Mayor Guiliani calls it the 'broken glass' theory." [150]
  • 18:39, 2 October
    • "Your desperate incessant nonsensical ramblings on my Talk page are now putting you in danger of becoming classified as a stalker. It would be a shame if you followed along the destructive path of user Eleemosynary. Just a heads up. Big Daddy. Ps Because of your abuse of the privilege of posting on my talk page, all future posts are on my delete immediately list." [151]

[edit] October 3

  • 00:36, 3 October
    • "Ps Also will be reinstating my reasonable, clearly defended, logical and explicitly documented before the fact edits and continue to do so ad infinitum undeterred by anonymous multiple-reverting page vandals. Just thought everyone would like to know." [152]
  • 01:16, 3 October
    • "Keep in mind childish pranksters and page vandals ultimately will not prevail at Wikipedia. Just ask Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. He may be ready to crack down on such nonsense. It's sad to see how fast Kizzle has discredited himself, but please provide any supporting evidence you may have. Take care. Note: I also cleaned up the convuluted tit for tat McVeigh section. Here's how it looks now:" [153]
  • 01:20, 3 October
    • "People that I think have some authority tend to sit on their hands (except of course if I don't cross a 'T' correctly lol!)" [154]
  • 01:27, 3 October
    • "Page vandalism by Elemosynary reverted and reported." [155]
  • 01:33, 3 October
    • "A page vandal loses his wings." [156]
  • 02:06, 3 October
    • "Wrong again. Not upset at all. I think the more sunshine that's shed on this users 'contributions', the better it will be for the entire Wikipedia community. His back and forth attacks aren't distracting anyone from 'the evidence.' They are the evidence. Take care and Have a great week! :) " [157]
  • 04:12, 3 October
    • This is a list of all the comments BigDaddy removed from his talk page today, some of them were not just removed, but replaced with a personal attack: [158] [159] [160] [161]
  • 04:26, 3 October
    • "Why anyone who honestly respects what Jimmmy Wales has instructed us would want to take this out is a question I hope someone can find the answer to." [162]
  • 04:46, 3 October
    • "BTW, just so you know, I'm not personally troubled by any of these attacks whatsoever. I've been in situatons like this, although quite not so outnumbered. (My guess is that there are 15 liberals/libertarians for every conservative.) And liberals have every right to be here and edit. I've read enough to know that Jimmy Wales's heart is in the right place with this and it's such an ingenious concept, it would be criminal to let it be controlled by any one political idealogy." [163]
  • 10:41, 3 October
    • "There absolutely is. And it's uncanny how predictable those peddling bias are. I'm just glad you don't make a pattern of UPLOADING pornographic photos to the internet and inappropriately placing them where elementary school children are likely to search. Or do you?..." [164] [165]
  • 10:58, 3 October
    • "Hmmm..Civility. You mean like writing a complete stranger "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you." Just curious... Big Daddy. I know that comment isn't disrespectful. Because...well....you told me it wasn't." [166] [167]
  • 11:23, 3 October
    • "You don't like me removing liberal bias from articles so you personally attack. And then when I defend myself you accuse me of being guilty of the very thing you just did. Not only that, and I'm holding this in reserve, but I did a little research and found that this is the exact same pattern...almost word for word that your fellow like-minded liberal editors have used to marginalize, discriminate against and ultimatly (with varying degrees of success) attempt to ban tons of other conservatives who wanted to clean up Wikipedia from systemic POV problems in the past. The similarity is almost eerie. I guess this is what's meant when the scriptures say 'There's nothing new under the sun?' huh?" [168] [169] [170] [171]
  • 11:42, 3 October
    • "The whole process will only backfire. And not just on formerly-anonymous-now-Mr.Tibbs (wait until you see what I uncovered about his activities)....but all involved." [172]
  • 11:54, 3 October
    • "Thanks for letting me know who's been reverting my work without comment in the Coulter Talk Page. I asssure you that ANY re-introduction of POV will be removed...over and over again. It's the way Jimmy Wales has asked it to be. Also, I don't want to muddy your talk page but, if you go to Derex's page, you'll see the latest outburst from Elemosynary after he vowed to stop making personal attacks. Check it out before it's removed. Or since, you enjoy the history tab so much, you can always find it on my talk page. I guess you two guys kind of work together on alot of things, huh?" [173]
  • 11:57, 3 October
    • "I agree with Katefan's advice. It took me awhile to realize the wisdom in that counsel, but it's really paid off! :) Have a nice day." [174]
  • 12:10, 3 October
    • "You know when you 'garbage collect' like that on a rfa page, it kinda reminds me of how the POV warriors collect a litany of slams against Karl Rove in an attempt to poison his page. Isn't that coincidental? Your pal, Big Daddy. Ps But, I thought you 'We're only trying to help!' lol! Bummer, that I sniffed you out from day one, huh?" [175]
  • 12:36, 3 October
    • "This whole section is a cheap smear job anyway. It reflects a distincly LIBERAL pov mostly provoked by the false selective outrage of democratic opportunists after Rove uttered the statements. In my opinion, it should be removed or more likely corralled into the 'cheap shot ghetto' along with all the other items that fit the bill." [176]
  • 12:43, 3 October
    • "I can certainly understand why you would want to call for a an absolution on the mention of Jimmy Wales. But it's not gonna happen cause the inmates are no longer running the asylum. The attempts by POV warriors to game the system so that, in their world, the rules mean whatever they want them to be, is belied by the fact that Jimmy Wales came onto these very talk pages and spelled out how we should treat impartial sources." [177] [178]
  • 13:44, 3 October
    • "Wow! Was it just a month ago that I was so angry! lol! Well, to be fair, that was literally when I first arrived and just started editing things without knowing how Wik Works. In fact, I didn't even know what a Talk Page was. But, for the record, I have ONLY posted as Big Daddy and even when I was on the road for a few days, I would ALWAYS sign off as Big Daddy. ... Thus ALL THESE CHARGES ARE SLANDEROUS. And, invoking the tried and true rule that what liberal accuse me of, they are usually guilty of themselves, I'm beginning to wonder about my accusers in this regard.." [179]
  • 13:48, 3 October
    • "But, one way to make it clear to everyone that these attackers are paranoid and delusional is for all those using anonymous names to register a distinctive user ID. I've always been against anonyomous users in general. But, if you have a serious reason for doing so, I respect that. And I greatly respect what you're doing here. You have NO idea how good it is to see that these people will attack ANYBODY who tries to remove bias. It sort of auto-makes my points for me. So, anyway thanks again for doing such a superb job on Coulter, but please consider getting a user name. You are great!" [180]
  • 14:05, 3 October
    • "The dust is settled and your 'forced guess' is flat out wrong. I think it should be very easy for someone to verify that there are apparently two anonymous editors who are falsely being accused of being me. There's no reason to not punish these 3rr violators NOW. They should be stopped from disrupting these editor's work. I can totally relate as they try the same thing with me. It would be funny that in their paranoia, they see 'Big Daddy' behind every door knob. But it's not when it affects the integrity of Wikipedia and this does. I propose a permanent lifetime ban on Eleemosynary and all of his sockpuppets (which, since he's falsely accused me of this practice, I'm apt to believe it's a deceptive act he's engaging in although I have no specific proof) and a ban of no less than 18 months for guetarrda for his joint participation in this act. A message must be sent that they cannot continue to gang up and harass conservative editors. Not that I've been told that these two anony editors they are harassing are conservatives, but these two are certainly trying to bring balance and that's all that's needed to cause these vandals to attack them." [181]
  • 14:11, 3 October
    • "On a side note, I feel very sorry for anyone in Wikipedia who's mistaken for me. The sheer angst-ridden vitriol, hate and poisonous venom that's routinely spewed on me merely for trying to remove POV is just water off my back. But I hate to see anyone else subjected to this abuse." [182]
  • 14:24, 3 October
    • "I am ticked that this guy even has to defend himself against these IRRATIONAL PARANOID DELUSIONAL charges. Doesn't anyone know how to get to the bottom of this? And once they do, whoever is proven wrong, should be given a LIFETIME ban. ... That is a very POWERFUL point. What he's saying confirms what I've observed. There has been allowed to exist for too long a CULTURE here that's so hostile....so degrading...so marginalizing to people that are merely asking for fairness, that it deters conservatives from even wanting to join Wikipedia. For shame, I say. For shame. " [183]
  • 14:28, 3 October
    • "It might be helpful to know it has been alleged, in an act of vengence and defiance of everything Wikipedia stands for, that these abusers may have compacted to capriciously REVERSE all my edits wherever they find them irrespective of their merit." [184]
  • 14:32, 3 October
    • "I take a definitive stand. The users elemonsynary and guettarda are the guilty parties. Period." [185]
  • 14:42, 3 October
    • "I'm not afraid of these POV warriors. Their fear of me however has turned them into paranoics seeing 'Big Daddy' in anything and everything they encounter that's fair at Wikipedia." [186]
  • 14:48, 3 October
    • " I think you're great and sorry you have had to endure the scorn normally reserved for me. lol! I appreciate your courageous move and hope this puts an end to the slanderous charges bandied about. Keep doing the excellent work you have to remove POV from conservative columnists articles. I GUARANTEE you we will succeed as this is what founder Jimmy Wales wants. Don't let the humorless or the hateful deter you. I still get the biggest kick out of Wikipedia. It's an ingenius idea and will prevail as Jimmy envisioned it. A FAIR encyclopedia, not a breeding ground for people of just one single distorted view of the world." [187]
  • 14:54, 3 October
    • "I observed with my very own eyes how, though he literally bent over backwards for these people, they just spit on him like he was refuse. Something's got to be done about this..." [188]
  • 19:19, 3 October
    • "But you both shock and surprise me with a personal attack in your very fist sentence. To suggest that I'm some knee-jerk reactionary spoling for a fight with the left wing cabal is to caricature me in a grossly distorted way. I'm here to remove POV. Period. Now, it is acknowledged by you and others that there are currently a preponderance of liberals in here doing the editing, although no one until you would be willing to admit that there was a left-wing cabal and a sinister one at that!" [189] [190]
  • 19:38, 3 October
    • "And I might add I was still pretty much a newbie at this point and the incident had to do with ryan ERASING my commentary in an ARTICLE talk page!! Being new, I thought, if she can do that to me, I'll do that to her so it went back and forth until Kate stepped in within minutes I might add... with the above threat. I wonder if Kate can point out a similar threat to block made to Ryan or anybody else who's vandalized me in that manner?" [191] [192] [193] [194]

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] BigDaddy's Article Edits

The reason why most everyone has been focusing on BigDaddy's talkpage actions and not his article actions is because breaking WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL is generally more disruptive than breaking WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, or WP:EW. And the fact that BigDaddy really doesn't make that many article edits compared to talk edits [195]. Nevertheless, BigDaddy's article edits should not be ignored. This is a list consisting of only cites and is broken into three categories, BigDaddy's POV edits, vandalism by BigDaddy, and multiple reversions that are part of an edit war. The cites are arranged chronologically starting from the beginning. Note that BigDaddy will edit war even over edit's that are vandalism[196][197][198][199]. The majority of BigDaddy's article edits were reverted in short order by the community, despite BigDaddy's persistent edit warring.

[edit] Evidence presented by Kizzle

The following evidence is taken straight from the RfC evidence page, covers the period between Sept 1 and Sept 10, and is the basis of an RfC that BigDaddy calls a "pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around." The largest piece of evidence is something that cannot be expressed by providing diff links: It's BigDaddy's maintained ignorance of the RfC despite being endorsed by over 20 people, thus leading us here. --kizzle 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "What the heck is this - the winner of the essay competition in the Special Olympics???" - [310]
  • "I'm only guessing, but I THINK this 'brain surgeon' is referring to Ann's recent comments about New York CITY that it's citizens would 'surrender' if attacked by terrorists." - [311]
  • "Sheesh what is it with you WackiWiki Liberals???" - [312]
  • "I am beginning to question your abilities as an editor at Wikipedia. You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension and in addtion to an obviouls lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack." - [313]
  • "For you to exicse that because of PATHETIC, PALTRY, nitpicking reasons like the ones you stated suggests you are a walking POV masquerading as a concerned editor..." - [314]
  • "Now Hip, I'm not sure of you're aware of this great new site, but it's called Google and you can type in any search entry you want and it comes back with all kind of useful information. You should try it. It's amazing!" - [315]
  • "Wow! Even a liberal hater admits she got it first. Although he is somehow mysterously able to discern it was 'by accident.' As for the rest of your drivel...well...You should have quit while you were BEHIND! lol!" - [316]
  • "I attacked the writing. Which was retarded." - [317]
  • "Finally, there are TONS of people working in Wikipedia who HATE ANN COULTER WITH ALL THEIR GUTS. Don't ask me why...my guess it's some kind of pyscho-sexual thing with them. It's usually men and it's probably because all their life they've been rejected by smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter and when one appears on the air and it turns out she's conservative, it makes their entire life seem meaningless as they've spent it all trying to be as liberal chic as possible to ATTRACT smart beautiful women like Ann Coulter." - [318]
  • "But, it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann..." - [319]
  • "Wow!...you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand...dontcha?" - [320]
  • "All this says to me that those folks are completely UNqualified to be editors..." - [321]
  • "To suggest that it is **I** who am bringing a POV to this HATCHET JOB + would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic." - [322]
  • "I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you don't have a clue." - [323]
  • "My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left." - [324]
  • "I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities)" - [325]
  • "Also, and I'm sure much to the chagrin of the liberal editors here, I took out most of those nasty vicious ad hominem attacks that you guys just love to smear Coulter with (even in her encyclopedia entry.)" - [326]
  • "He ownly disowned her in the wonderful world of Wikipedia where, a liberal democrat can do no wrong and a Christian is always the bad guy." - [327]
  • "You liberals are insane!! You are so DRIPPING WITH HATE FOR FOX NEWS that you can't even mention Roger Ailes without cheap shotting him? Why not just say ...'Roger Ailes of Fox News, who has a large ass boil on his right butt cheek!'???" - [328]
  • "Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health..." - [329]
  • "Oh you poor misguided soul... Don't you know that the liberal editors at Wikipedia feel it is their MISSION TO "discredit O'Reilly as a TV commentator"??" - [330]
  • "You might have better luck trying that argument in metafilter. I see thru insincere drivel like this as if it was saran wrap." - [331]
  • "Please get rid of it...and the cheap shot on Bush at the end of the paragraph was soooo precious. It pretty much says everything about the wacko who included this, huh?" (though changed later) - [332]
  • "Your great hate is apparently driving some of you insane." - [333]
  • BigDaddy777 justifies his focus upon the editor rather than the content of the article: "Conservatives (or right of center folk, etc) don't mind the transparency. For liberals, they somehow think if they play fair (at least from their perspective) it doesn't matter. They actually think they're fooling people but I can sniff them out a mile away. That's why Hip is always trying to steer me away from the editor. He's got a point, but at some juncture you have to ask yourself, if SO MANY of the editors are liberal, then why does Wik even posit itself as nPOV?"
  • Shouts at another editor for no reason - [334]
  • "But I'm not a liberal who, under the auspices of 'just wanting to present facts' slimes and denigrates people in their encyclopedic entry."[335]

[edit] BigDaddy's Views on Sockpuppetry

  • "Bottom line: I ONLY post as Big Daddy and I use NO sock puppets. Thus ALL THESE CHARGES ARE SLANDEROUS. And, invoking the tried and true rule that what liberal accuse me of, they are usually guilty of themselves, I'm beginning to wonder about my accusers in this regard.." - [336]
  • "Don't try to block me. Be reasonable and accountable in your reporting as I have a hundred IP's to choose from." - [337]

[edit] Particularly nasty in changing people's comments

Comment: "I'm not sure it matters to you, but don't you think its a bad idea (and very counterproductive) to change comments into attacks on people and then leaving their sigs in? You do it several times above, and it seems like you're looking for trouble. On the other hand, reading all this stuff, maybe you are. Windsagio 17:55, 4 October 2005"

BigDaddy changed to: "Nonsensical post deleted. Welcome to Wikipedia troublemaker...I mean Windsagio 17:55, 4 October 2005"

[edit] Finally...

The Nail in the Coffin
(posted on October 4, i.e. after the arbitration was accepted)

[edit] Evidence presented by Woohookitty

  • Discussing editors who take issue with his POV edits: "LOL! These guys don't get it. If you try to present fairness and balance, they will treat you like Karl Rove who of course is their hate-surrogate for President Bush who in turn is a surrogate for who they ultimately hate most - Jesus. Since I'm just a 3rd generation hate-surrogate target, their bluster is pretty mild. But the closer you go up their food chain, it gets pretty nasty. They harassed Karl Rove's family home, threw a live grenade at President Bush and don't forget what they did to Jesus...Big Daddy Ps I knew all this going in. Have had TONS of experienced with these types of disturbed individuals. And I really hate to toy with them like this, but there's not much you can do with irrational people. Trust me, reason does not work. lol! Big Daddy 08:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)" [338]
  • Many occasions where Big Daddy voided out dissenting opinion on his talk page and labeled it as "stalking" when all it was was dissenting opinion (and these are all from the last 3 days). This is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines: [339], [340], [341], [342], [343], [344], [345].
  • Now BigDaddy is essentially vandlizing posts on his talk page by altering content: [346], [347]
  • Now we have him putting me on his "instant delete list" when all I did was suggest that he stop removing users comments as it is against the spirit of Wikipedia. [348]
  • He is now deleting comments correctly, but these still show his inability to work with people civilly on Wikipedia: [349],
  • In this last one, he actually blamed me for removing comments I had made. He does not take responsibility for his actions. [350].
  • And now he is encouraging others to delete posts off of his userpage. And we have yet another "liberal" reference
    • "I'll be gone for a couple days...until Friday. Got a business trip (for you liberal Wikipedians, that's what people with a real life do from time to time.) If you're in Boston, think of Big Daddy as I'll be close. Gator and Paul, if you're so inclined, feel free to DELETE the usual junk from the usual suspects. You two are the ONLY ones that have my authorization to do so. If you have a question, delete and email me the contents. I do read each and every post primarily because I have an insatiable appetite for...laughter! Much love to all my peeps..."Big Daddy 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And now we are back to deleting other users comments the incorrect way: [351].
  • Here we have him just deleting a post with no note on his talk page, though he was warned to put a note on it. "All...deleted" isn't the correct format. Users need to label each deletion: [352].
  • And here are cases where he's mocked the dispute resolution process by...ignoring people trying to help him: [353], [354] and by claiming that arbitration is just some sort of "witch hunt" designed to "get" conservatives: [355]
  • Now he's violating the policy that states that no one "owns" pages: [356], [357].
  • Now we have a ridiculous situation where he posts on my talk page. I post on his and of course, he deletes my post: [358].
  • Evidence of BigDaddy777's bad faith edits. Taken from the talk page of this page...
  • In regards to Fred's question, BigDaddy's edit's are generally POV, and part of an edit war against the consensus[359], He certainly isn't above the occassional bit of vandalism either[360]. Ryan pointed out some other examples of BigDaddy's vandalism. Sometimes he'll even sneak an insult in the edit summary about the "ann haters"[361]. Here are a few more examples: [362] [363]. Here's one more unexplained paragraph deletion: [364]. Here's one with a threat in the edit summary: [365]. Here's one where he vandalistically deletes an entire section and then calls Someone Else a vandal: [366]. I'm sure there's a lot more evidence about BigDaddy's article edits that could be presented, but do we really need to, Fred? Mr. Tibbs 03:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I 'met' BD first on the Karl Rove article where his edits were vandalous (i.e. unexplained, persistent and disinformative) blankings of entire paragraphs containing episodes unfavorable to Rove - e.g. the 'self-bugging' incident [367], the Dixon campaign incident [368] and the McCain 'push poll' incident [369], each of which led to revert wars and much trolling on BD's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Ryan Freisling

[edit] Violations of the 3RR

BD777 violated the 3RR on two occasions of which I am aware, each time resulting in a report and a temporary block. [370] [371] -- RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Well, there's a little bit of abusiveness from BD directed specifically at me. A post of mine, which he deleted and replaced with this attack (yet keeping my sig, therefore misattributing the quote to me). Classic troll nonsense, accusing me of "the most egregious abuse of Wikipedia rules ever". Still have no idea what (if anything) he means. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nonsense deleted from a user - Ryan Freisling who engages in perhaps the most egregious abuse of Wikipedia rules ever to perpetuate POV slime Yuk. Just the fact that she was this close to my Talkpage literally makes my skin crawl ...Stay away. Love, Big Daddy" [372]

BigDaddy went on to continue this 'new streak' of bad behavior - modifying others' comments on his talk page into insults and personal attacks [373], behavior for which he was ultimately given a temporary block [374], after multiple admin warnings which he simply deleted.[375]

After having his temporary block lifted, BD777 continues his personal attacks on me, deleting others' comments in favor of a renewed personal attack [376]:

"Well, I have no desire to brawl with anybody but Ryan's actions are so despicable I just don't want her anywhere near my talk page. She bully's people into accepting her twisted look at the world and when she runs into someone who's stronger (like me), she just tries to game the system to have them removed. I hope she doesn't think people are unaware of EXACTLY how she operates and that it's doomed for failuure.. Her ways are transparently obvious to intelligent people and spelled out in explicit fashion in my post below. In the end, people like that ultimately self-destruct because their motives are so fraught with hostility for others. And even for someone who's actions are as deplorable as Ryan's...it's kind of sad, isn't it?" Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
"But I forgive you man. You're an honest and decent person who, like me, only wants to remove the endemic POV from Wikipedia. But seriously equivocating someone who behaves as contemptably as Ryan with me??? That makes that vicious slime attack that guterrda spewed when he suggested the '777' in my name stood for white power, seem charitable by comparison." Big Daddy 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"Ps On the bright side, Ryan's behavior makes Katefan and Hippocrite seem...er...not that bad. lol! :)" Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that I remain uncertain what specific behavior he's referring to and based on his pattern, I now see his behavior as pure trollery. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And another classic BD777 attack/troll/provoke post can be seen on this very evidence page's talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ostensibly 'good' behavior on BD's part

So, I considered going thru and itemizing the evidence as Mr. Tibbs does above, and decided he had a good idea, in simply allowing the content provided by the user under RfA to speak for itself. I didn't want to be duplicative though - and I wanted to communicate the scope and nature of interactions with this user, and puzzled over how to do it given the vast body of abusive and inflammatory content this user has contributed in predominantly non-article spaces.

Then I decided that I would reprint this section from BD777's RfC, which Paul Klenk described as "evidence of BD777's improved behavior". I feel it very eloquently speaks to just how 'off-base' BD is in his regular dealings with editors here at the wikipedia, and in essence, speaks the best about BD777's conduct at the same time - as these are ostensibly the examples of good behavior on his part.

As Paul described it, The comments below indicate a sense of normalcy, calmness and civility on the part of BigDaddy777, and reduced use of rhetoric in favor of plain-speaking, even when he is defending himself. paul klenk 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And in my opinion, if the below conduct represents an improvement, this user is fundamentally espousing an anti-collaborative and frankly, trollish mindset. And if anything, they demonstrate BD777's awareness of the process of cordial and cooperative dialogue - and his lack of desire to conduct himself accordingly.

  • [377] Gone for the weekend. Have fun everybody. I'll be back soon to make sure this article is EXEMPLARY in fulfilling founder Jimmy Wales vision of an IMPARTIAL trustworthy encyclopedia that everyone will be proud of. I also will bone up on my rules so that I'll know the difference between being in violation of them and being FALSELY accused of being in violation of them in order to suppress my legitimate contribution.
  • [378] I'm glad to see you noticed I'm 'getting better.' I am still quite new afterall and didn't know what to expect although my initial gut feelings have all been confirmed [accompanied by the edit summary] Ok KateFan, how would you handle this one?
  • [379] I and others will go in, re-work it so it reads like a LEGITIMATE encyclopedic article noting his many accomplishment. It will include controversies such as Plame etc but they will be undergirded by IMPARTIAL sources.
  • [380] I suggest you be very careful before accusing me of page vandalism. It's a serious charge and I don't take slanderous charges lightly. You can see for yourself, that despite your unconvincing defense of her, this has backfired on Ryan not to mention resulted in her getting her hand caught in the cookie jar for multiple RR's
  • [381] There is a line in the section about Congressional reaction to Rove that lists a litany of slams from democratic congressman but the only thing it says about republicans is something to the effect that no one has challenged his standing. But Republicans have had a lot to say about Rove/Plame. I'm wondering why it's missing in here?
  • [382] In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol!
  • [383] My point is, as Katefan I think pointed out, you can't just edit the article to say rove is a cross dresser because some guy in a blog posted it.
  • [384] We don't have an encyclopedia if it's not fair balanced and impartial.
  • [385] I was especially disappointed to be falsely accused of 'gaming the system.' That is an unconscionable slur against me and, in my view, the worst of all the personal attacks I've had to endure
  • [386] Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know.
  • [387] Secondly, you mischaracterized my objection. I do object to the use of Bush's hit man as it's not only biased but because it offers no proof.
  • [388] My personal feelings is that you cannot use partial sources and most people know that. For example if someone insisted, on using The Elders of Zion to trash Jews, they would be banned as they should be.
  • [389] I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?
  • [390] In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts
  • [391] And I will point out that Ryan has accused me of 'vandalism' simply because I, with thorough attribution, removed biased sections of the article. Did you reprimand Ryan for that? I'm asking for decency and fairness and not to be singled out
  • [392] Since you say you agree with me here, I'm gonna defer and allow YOU to be the first to offer suggestions as to how it can be more balanced.
  • [393] I'd like to see us add a religion section to the Ann Arbor article. The city was the birthplace of The Word of God community in the late 70's/early 80's which is WIDELY considered to be the progenitors of the charismatic Catholic movement worldwide.
  • [394] Since this article almost reads like campaign literature, to add balance I'm inclined to include what Randall Terry feels about Wasserman Schultz's involvement in the Schivo case.

[edit] Evidence presented by Derex

[edit] September 30

This is somewhat unusual, but I would like to enter this section Talk:Karl Rove#Resources of the Karl Rove talk page into evidence. I feel it is important to demonstrate that BigDaddy777 does not sincerely try to work towards consensus. I think it largely speaks for itself. But, do note that efforts to critique his suggested language are made by me, Derex, and by others, in a sincere effort to find a neutral compromise. Instead of iterating on this towards consensus, he diverged into a rant about his 'Clinton Model' that should be a 'precedent' for all of Wikipedia. In short, he seems more interested in brawling and showmanship and exposing a supposed liberal cabal than in sincere work towards consensus. This was my one experience with BigDaddy777 on Talk, but it was the "straw on the back" that persuaded me to sign onto this complaint. A broader scan of the talk page and archives shows that this example is fairly representative of BigDaddy777's style.

[edit] October 10

Redwolf24 blocks BD for one week disruption. BD edits into the middle of Redwolf24's "tips" on how to be civil, but warns him that if he keeps it up he could be indefinitely block. Leaving the following tirade replete with threats to Wikipedia. Redwolf24 folows through on the warning by levying an indefinite block. Hopefully, that will be the end of this. Blatant violation of No legal threats

After reading pages as this very talk page and seeing you being incivil in many, many places, and edit warring, and attacking other editors in many ways, I am blocking you for a week under the Disruption clause of the blocking policy. And to arbitrators: Feel free to unblock if you feel necessary, but this user is attackalicious. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not Liberal. I'm apolitical, tilting ever so slightly towards Conservative....

SURE you are...Just like Katefan, right? lol!

...so don't even try to attack me as such. See ya in a week, and if you keep it up, indefinite block. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)



It's too late dude.

I've got all the goods on you guys I need.

Now it's on to the people who finance Wikipedia.

I GUARANTEE you when I'm done with presenting the evidence, you won't be getting a RED CENT from anyone but liberal donors.

A far left wacked out organization financed by purely left wing funding.

Try selling the American People THAT as a neutral encyclopedia...

I told you guys this was gonna be a win:win for me.

I win if I stayed and helped changed Wikipedia.

or

I win if I PROVED beyond a shadow of doubt to reasonable people (not these dungeons and dragons playactors I've been dealing with) that this place is what I told user ngb the first days I came here -

A liberal cesspool of far left kooks controlling what is said on the political pages.

So, block me now, block me forever, you were a day late and a buck or two short. T he damage has been done.

I will take the ENORMOUS PASSION I have to reform Wikipedia to the funding sources and make sure ANY conservative or fair minded person sees this how utterly contemptable the left wing bias is in here. And when I do...watch the non-liberal funding dry up.

This plan has been in place from almost the beginning but I wanted to see if reformation was possible. But the final straw for you guys was that anti-Semetic Jew baiting slur from JamesMLane. Wait till the donors find out this pure bigotry was spewed by one of the MOST RESPECTED liberals in here. There's gonna be a lot of 'splainin to do over that one. lol!

Face it: In very short order, Wikipedia will rightfully become known throghout the world as the official encyclopedia for DemocraticUnderground.Com and nothing else....

Your pal,

Big Daddy

Ps Special thanks to all the liberals in here that censor conservatives and treat them like Negroes in the south in the 50's. I really could not have done what I'm about to do without you. Think I won't?....I think you all know better...

[edit] Evidence presented by Jdavidb

I offer the following as evidence that the list of alleged sockpuppets on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop page has no basis in fact. This is a comment copied from that page:

  1. I cannot believe that Barneygumble (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of BigDaddy777. They are nothing alike. They have never even edited the same articles. Gumble has been around much longer, first editing on 2005-06-13, while BigDaddy first edited on 2005-09-01. BigDaddy is much more prolific and expresses control-freak behavior on his talk page; Gumble does not seem to have ever done anything like this. BigDaddy can't seem to do anything but make personal attacks; while Gumble might have engaged in this, he seems focused on editing articles. Meanwhile, LEONARD WATSON (talk • contribs) and Paganviking (talk • contribs) have never actually made any edits, so I fail to see how they can be sockpuppets! 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) makes real edits that don't sound like anything BigDaddy would ever do such as [395], has been around peacefully editing articles such as Ann Coulter much longer than BigDaddy [396], and uses words like "trifecta": [397]. BigDaddy does not use edit summaries the way this guy does and probably never heard the word "trifecta." 67.124.200.240 (talk • contribs) states that he is 67124etc (talk • contribs) and I see no reason not to believe him. While it does appear to me that BigDaddy may have very recently (in the past few hours) started sockpuppetting, this accusation is completely meritless. Jdavidb 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, according to User:Fred Bauder, results of the IP check were ambiguous: [398] Jdavidb 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] October 7

  • [399] BigDaddy returns today and makes a good faith edit to propose changes on the Ann Coulter talk page. While still not fully familiar with policy and still a little rough around the edges, it is noteworthy that with the freedom to edit any page in Wikipedia he wants he is proposing changes on the talk page rather than forcing them through with a revert war. This is the behavior we want. We need to get continued assurances that he will respect the rules and work with consensus, but this is evidence that things are improving. Jdavidb (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Eleemosynary

I offer the following as evidence that the allegations of sockpuppetry do indeed have basis in fact.

[edit] BigDaddy's threat to use "hundreds of IPs"

  • "Don't try to block me. Be reasonable and accountable in your reporting as I have a hundred IP's to choose from." - [400]

[edit] Statement and Response to Jdavidb (above)

I would like to put forth evidence that 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) aka 216.119.139.73 aka 216.119.139.5 aka Viper Daimao and 67.124.200.240 (talk • contribs) aka 67124etc are indeed sockpuppets of BD777. As for the other possible user names alleged, I can't really make a determination. I take issue with Jdavidb's assertions that the sockpuppet claims are "meritless." For instance, just because the anonymous IPs' tone and language differ (at times) from BD777's abusive harangues, that is not in itself exonerating evidence. Indeed, one of the more sophisticated uses of sockpuppets is to create allies that sound completely different from the primary user, in order to build a false consensus, and to avoid 3RR violations by switching identities. BD777 himself takes heated issue with Jdavidb's "trifecta" comment [401].
I suggest that BD777 created 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) , and 67.124.200.240 (talk • contribs) to create a false consensus on the Ann Coulter page by buttressing each other's edits, and employing multiple reverts to avoid 3RR violations. When admistrator fvw blocked BD777 and his sockpuppets, BD777 than created Viper Daimao in an attempt to confuse the issue, and build another false sense of consensus on the Workshop page of this Arbitration. Sockpuppet 64.154.26.251 (talk • contribs) under an (admitted) alternate IP address in the 216.119 series has also posted a few rambling paragraphs of non-evidence directly below, in order to confuse the issue, and distract from the evidence.

[edit] Evidence that "Viper Daimao," 64.154.26.251, several IPs in the 216.119 series, 67.124.200.240 and "67124etc" are sockpuppets of BD777

On the workshop page Viper Daimao suggests a false choice:
" So either we are all seperate people as we and others claim, or BD777 actually has 2,300 or so sockpuppets."
Actually, there are some other possibilities.
Here's one: BD777, looking for a way out of the "dynamic user" issue without being tagged for sockpuppeting, creates "Viper Daimao," a sockpuppet who feigns bewilderment and innocence, then claims to work for "internal IT" at Halliburton, yet seems to have no knowledge of how IP addresses work (as if blocking BD777's IP would somehow block the entirety of Halliburton from editing Wikipedia). [402][403]
But BD777 needs to keep the "innocent Viper" ruse going, so he goes out of his way on his User Page to tell us "I dont quite have a hang on all the wiki tags and formats, and I havent really contributed much, just maybe a question here or there on a talk page." He also claims the handful of non-political edits in the fiery history of 64.154.26.251 belong to him. Are we to believe it's just a coincidence that a user who claims to post so infrequently, and says he really isn't that skilled on Wikipedia, would suddenly appear on the administrator's noticeboard less than two hours after the block was issued, and carry on like this: [404]?
I suggest BD777 does this to create a much less "fiery" version of himself (an "aw shucks" sockpuppet, if you will). BD777, now creates a new account Viper Daimao and sends his sockpuppet at 64.154.26.251 a "hey, you have my IP address" message in order to establish credibility. But he goes too far: "Hey, you have my IP address. Do you work at the same company and location I work at? In houston, off of Bellaire blvd?"[405] It's a transparent ruse, with the subtext of… "hey, I'll write all this overwhelming info on your page, so no one will suspect we're sockpuppets."
On "Viper's" Talk Page, he then tells us that "his IP address at work is shared by a few people," gilding the lily to build up an "evidence pile" in anticipation of investigation. He does the same thing again on sockpuppet 67124etc's Talk Page, repeating the same talking points, but this time adopting "yall" [sic], perhaps to better disguise "Viper" as a Houston native. [406] [407]
BD777, under the sockpuppet cover of "67124etc" then sends "Viper" a message of commiseration. In doing so, BD777 shows his hand: the charges are "baseless" and BD777 has "a lot of enemies."[408] We've heard this from BD777 before. "67124etc" later issues "Viper" another commiseration message set out to establish that 1) He is in California (and not, say, Houston), and, of course, that BD777 is wrongly accused. [409] Quite a lot of advocacy from such "impartial" users, wouldn't you say? This little colloquy, by the way, is a Must Read: [410][411]
Where does this lead us? Well, right to the Workshop page of this arbitration. Going by timestamp, one can almost trace BD777's frustration with these allegations, via the escalation of invective in his sockpuppets.
In no time at all, BD777 goes from this[412] (under cover of 216.119.139.22) to this [413], (under cover of 67124etc).
And it's the same playbook BD777 has continued to use through over a month of bullying and abuse: projection, accusations of slurs, charges of not behaving like an adult, dodging the issues, etc. The sockpuppets are not as fierce as their owner, but their tactics are the same.


--Eleemosynary 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by 216.119.etc. series

[edit] Objection to non-evidence presented by Eleemosynary on Evidence page

Eleemosynary has set forth analyzing evidence in his evidence section, rather than just presenting it. Also, in the first through fourth and seventh paragraph, a counter-hypothesis that the alleged sockpuppets are all individuals that he analyzes is not even present on the Evidence or even the Workshop page of this dispute.

Furthermore the analysis he advances through discussing whether certain remarks made in this Wiki can plausibly fit his hypothesis has been extensively disputed on the talk page of the Workshop page to where it was removed from the Workshop page proper by Fred Bauder, and could be moved again to wherever it would be appropriate.

Finally, repeated offers have been made early on (through an earlier related dispute) to definitively disprove this allegation, an allegation which is by its nature eminently falsifiable by a means not dependent on deliberation between competing speculative systems.

216.119.139.40 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Karmafist

[edit] 15:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • April 25, 2005
    • BD777 has another Sockpuppet, called simply "Big Daddy" [414].

Karmafist 15:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon

[edit] 11 October 2005

A threat by BigDaddy against Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABigDaddy777&diff=25240203&oldid=25239065

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_BigDaddy777_Evidence_95da.html"