Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Original text of request for arbitration:

BigDaddy777

Involved parties

User:Kizzle, User:Derex, User:Paul_Klenk, User:JamesMLane, User:RyanFreisling, User:Lord Voldemort, User:Hipocrite

• Many other users may be involved, for a complete list, please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

-- RyanFreisling @ 02:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

-- Eleemosynary 03:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have notified all parties listed as involved: [1][2][3][4][5][6] Mr. Tibbs 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• BigDaddy is aware of this RfAr and responded to my notice on his talk page with even more personal attacks: [7][8][9][10]. BigDaddy then proceeded to My talk page where he posted more uncivil rhetoric: [11]. -- Mr. Tibbs 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777 has stalled because BigDaddy777 refuses to even comment or acknowledge the RfC in any way. A poll was then taken as to whether or not this should go to Arbitration, and was subsequently heavily supported.

Statement by User:Kizzle

User:BigDaddy777 began editing at Wikipedia in the beginning of September, and quickly racked up an incredible amount of personal attacks and WP:AGF / Wikipedia:Civility violations, as evidenced in the evidence section of his current RfC. As a result, a RfC was brought against him to convince him to change his behavior (see the intro paragraphs to the RfC and Hipocrite and my note to BigDaddy on his talk page for the motives behind filing the RfC). BigDaddy refused to comment or apologize for his behavior and completely ignored the RfC's purpose or existence.

However, his edits became slightly more focused upon the content rather than his co-editors, thus I offered to suspend the RfC in order to foster good behavior (as I certainly wouldn't feel happy editing with a pending RfC against me). After this request was made, User:Hipocrite pointed out BigDaddy's continued attack upon other editors. At this point, I offered only to rescind the RfC if he would simply comment on the RfC page something to the effect of "I will not commit personal attacks anymore" or anything along the lines of recognizing that his behavior was not ok. I gave him ample time and kindly requested several times that he respect Wikpedia procedures and comment on his own RfC, but to date he still has refused. Thus, I rescinded the offer and sought community concensus to bring this to RfA.

The problem with BigDaddy's perception of his co-editors can be summarized in his own words, taken from a post made yesterday:

A whole bunch of Left-leaning Editors get together and, drawing from dubious sources and histrionic partisan windbags, string together a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, unfounded rumors and outright fabrications, and post it within the body of articles on conservative public figures they wish to marginalize under the category of 'Controversy' or 'Criticism.' Should someone suggest even the most modest of changes in order to bring the tiniest hint of balance, they fight them tooth and nail on...every...single...point before filing an RfC against them for being too uppity (sometimes they say 'too combative' but it's the same thing.) Finally, when confronted with the treachery of their actions, and exposed to the appropriate way to deal with rumor and innuendos in Wikipedia articles (usually found where the subject is a Democrat) they put their fingers in their ears and start shouting "Na, Na, Na...I can't hear you! Or else they simply demagogue the issue, distort the rules and spirit of Wikipedia to defend the perpetual and endemic on-line character assassinations of conservatives, and applaud one another for their wisdom. Kind of like what just happened here. - [12]

BigDaddy continues to drag discussions down into a left/right war akin to an online discussion forum such as DailyKos or FreeRepublic, and does not listen or respond to any attempts to cite actual Wikipedia policies. His lack of understanding policy in combination with his "my way or the highway" style of editing has significantly dampered the general atmosphere of civil discussions on every page that he has become a part of. But the primary reason why I am bringing this to RfA is his continued silence on his own RfC. Someone who is too stubborn to even acknowledge that other people have a problem with his behavior needs to have real consequences. In fact, BigDaddy recently gave his opinion on the heavily supported RfC against him and this arbitration request:

Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive 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, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks.Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) - [13]

From this example, BigDaddy inarguably demonstrates his inability to look at his own behavior, which is the reason behind this arbitration request.

While I would not expect those reviewing this case to sift through each and every comment, here are a few sections which should speak for themselves if one has the time:

• Talk:Karl_Rove#Katrina_Redux
• Talk:Karl_Rove#Resources
• Talk:Ann_Coulter#Most_recent_inclusion
• User_talk:BigDaddy777#Ann_Coulter
• User_talk:BigDaddy777#Arbitration_Requested

This exchange (later modified by BigDaddy) alone merits taking BigDaddy to arbcom for making threats (and emphasizing them with huge red lettering):

This whole thing called a dispute resolution process might seem to be a joking matter to you, but just in case you didn't have your pending arbcom request on your watchlist, it just got accepted by 2 arbcom members. Just a heads-up. --kizzle 02:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

You know, I hear these kind of things backfire when they're filed for transparently obvious political reasons. Just a heads-up. Big Daddy 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: Just checked with an important source. This attempt to silence me from addressing the endemic bias in Wikipedia will backfire. I guarantee it. :) Big Daddy 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

(the above section was copied exactly as it was coded, the creepy red lettering is BigDaddy's)

Finally (seriously this time), in response to BigDaddy's comment:

The unvarnished truth is that, in every single instance, those wishing to stifle my influence in Wikipedia have a political agenda. It is curious that I get along so well with the conservative editors who have worked with me on various articles. Not one of them has affirmed these charges [emphasis mine]...It's only in political (primarily conservative) commentators columns that I've been maligned and it's only non-conservatives who have done the maligning.

Here's a post right on BigDaddy's own user talk page:

Hi, BigDaddy777. I'm a right-winger, and it is definitely possible to work within consensus here. You need to read up on WP:NPOV. If you don't want to follow the policies, then you need to just leave. But let me promise you that NPOV is a beautiful treaty that does allow for consensus between left-wing, right-wing, and any other positions, and working in this way is very rewarding. But if you don't want to do that, please don't be a troublemaker. Jdavidb 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is my wish to seek a temporary ban only on political pages for User:BigDaddy777 until he can calm down and learn a proper sense of Wikiquette by editing non-controversial pages first. Once he has done so, I would be the first to welcome him back with a newfound understanding of Wikipedia norms, policies, and etiquette.

Statement by Mr. Tibbs

Ever since BigDaddy777's very first edit[14], he has subjected Wikipedia to an unrelenting tirade of personal attacks[15], uncivil rhetoric[16] and edit warring[17]. User[18] after User[19] after User[20] has attempted to parley with BigDaddy777 and persuade him to follow Wikipedia's rules, they have all failed[21]. Instead of improving his behavior, BigDaddy has used this new knowledge of Wikipedia policy to try and game the system[22]. BigDaddy has succeeded in baiting other users[23] and forcing several articles into reversion wars, or even page protection while completely ignoring the consensus regarding his extremely POV edits[24]. BigDaddy's behavior is completely unacceptable and needs to be stopped. Given the severity, frequency, and incredibly disruptive nature of BigDaddy's transgressions, I ask that a temporary injunction be made restricting BigDaddy to editing only his UserPages, and pages regarding his own arbitration case until this is settled. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Freisling

BigDaddy777 is a classic internet troll who communicates by chiding, threatening, blustering and accusations [25]. The citations of examples for his RfC were in the triple digits before the 'disputed behavior after this RfC' section was moved to talk. For a juicy list of cites please see [26]. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Eleemosynary

I concur with the above users. "BigDaddy777" is a particularly vicious troll, who vacillates between full-throated abuse and disruptive attempts to game the system. Check his RFC page, the history of his User Profile page, and the Karl Rove Talk Page for screed upon screed of vitriol and threats (some veiled, and some not). I've asked him several times to respond to his RFC page. He has labelled this "stalking" and has issued the (laughably) ominous "you've been warned" in response. --Eleemosynary 03:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a very recent quote, fresh off his talk page, in which he discusses those Wikipedia 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)" [27]

I see I've been quoted at length below. I did indeed make each of those statements (not all of which are attacks, btw), but only in response to personal attacks initiated by the subject of this Arbitration, which I will enumerate (upon request) when Arbitration begins. I realize this is no excuse, however. To be accused of "personal attacks" by this particular user is [insert your favorite pot/kettle analogy here]. However, it does seem I am certainly guilty of rising to too much of his troll bait, as a check of the source page for each of those statements will show.Eleemosynary 05:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Derex

I reluctantly agree that the time has come for arbitration. I only became involved in this controversy long after it had started. I had until recently hoped that BD could be persuaded to edit in a different spirit. I now see little likelihood of that without some relief from this arbitration process. BD has refused to even recognize the RFC, which was endorsed by 18 editors. After the RFC, he to some extent replaced his over-the-top hostility with a less blatantly outrageous, but still obvious and persistent, contempt of other editors. Plenty of people have reached out to him to no avail. Here's my attempt, which, despite BD's civilized response, changed his behavior not a whit. Here's my attempt to warn him that his behaviors, if continued, would likely move other editors to seek relief. Other editors have attempted to sincerely work towards achieving neutral language, taking even his more outrageous suggested language as a baseline. Rather than building on this to achieve a neutral compromise, BD repeatedly insists that this article conform to a (clearly flawed) precedent of some other article, thus ignoring the substantive issues at hand in this article; see Talk:Karl_Rove#Resources. In short, he changed the topic rather than sincerely work together towards a compromise, which seemed to me achievable. BD has repeatedly taken the attitude this is how it's going to be, this is contrary to the spirit of congenial dialogue and consensus here. In short, BD really has been much more disruptive than constructive. He refuses to take seriously any community input on his attitude apart from his edits; he won't even pay it lip service. I don't know what else to do but ask for some kind of intervention. Derex 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by NightMonkey

I will second most everything stated by the above users, who have been more affected than myself by BigDaddy777's uncivil and nonconstructive behavior. I was soured on being involved in editing any article he has participated in as soon as he started to rant, rail and crusade against the "liberal POV conspiracy" he feels is endemic to Wikipedia, and only returned within the last week or so to check back in on Karl Rove. I'm glad I decided to quickly "take a break" from caring about this and other similar politically charged articles, which was a good move, now seeing how this has developed. It is sad how quickly one person can so thoroughly distract and dishearten other volunteering Wikipedia editors for such a long time, without anything to really stop them in a timely fashion. I've asked him to stop his name-calling and other personal attacks. I even suggested to him that he just start a blog, where he is free to do as he pleases, which he interpreted as a personal attack. All to no avail. A month of this has been a month too long.

In addition to the ban on editing political articles' associated pages, I request that some ban be placed on his edits of other users' User and Talk pages. He seems to think that he is better able to be "unseen" there and often accuses people who are merely disagreeing with him that they are making personal attacks and/or stalking him, by merely using the tools made available to all Wikipedia users to track edits.

His general readiness to engage in "barroom fight" baiting and Rush Limbaugh-style labeling of other editors is very off-putting, distracting and annoying, and precludes any attempt at consensus and dialog. His pointed absence from the RfC process is not a good sign for improvement. I have a feeling he's even lumped me in with his specious "liberal POV warriors" crowd. Funny, since I'm a Libertarian. ;) Thank you for your time. --NightMonkey 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note on BigDaddy777's quote of me below. While I did indeed say that I would help revert any of his "low quality edits", I must underscore the "low quality" component of my statement. To be clear, what I did not say was that I would revert any high quality edits that he would make. --NightMonkey 09:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty

I'll be brief. I want to echo what everyone else has said. In addition, I really like that BD's comments about wanting Wikipedia recruiting conservative editors to contract the liberalism proves that he has no clue what Wikipedia is about. He does not assume good faith, which is the policy here. Instead, he assumes that everyone is attacking him because he's a conservative and everyone here is a liberal...even people like Katefan0 who have shown absolutely no indication of political bias. Wikipedia should not "recruit" anyone. It doesn't work that way. The fact that he thinks that Wikipedia should "recuit conservatives" proves that he doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose, which is to be NPOV. The only efforts he has made to be NPOV have been to use the policy for his own advantage.

In addition, banning Eleemosynary is an entirely separate issue and should not be addressed here. This is about BigDaddy777, not Eleemosynary.

Oh and I haven't seen this mentioned earlier, but BD supresses other viewpoints on his talkpage. [28] More evidence that he doesn't respect other opinions on Wikipedia, which is a requirement for being a NPOV editor. If you can't collaborate, you shouldn't be here. His latest thing seems to be to label people who contradict him as "stalking". [29] has the original comments made by kizzle under "Arbitration requested". --Woohookitty 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There's an irony here. I'm quite conservative myself, and I find BD's desire that "significant and widespread efforts (should) be launched immediately to actively recruit conservative editors" to be very close to affirmative action, which smacks of state intervention, equals bad thing. I believe that Wikipedia's bias is a product of gravitation rather than prescription, just as newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Guardian - without explicitly forbidding left- and right-wing contributors, respectively - tend to attract such people by a process of positive feedback. Unlike newspapers, which are closed-up, I see Wikipedia as more akin to a daisyworld, and any bias in one direction will eventually rouse the other side to action. In this instance Mr BD is a symptom of this, although he is unfortunately harming his cause. Although he comes across as a blustering wingbag, how go his article contributions? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Big Daddy 777

To begin, I think it will be helpful for the sake of context, to read about some of my accusers. Most of the following are recent posts from them on various pages of Wikipedia:

Eleemosynary

*Awww... the widdle twoll wants attention. Darn right it's a personal attack. I'll call you what you are, a pathetic troll, until the cows come home, trollboy. Eleemosynary 09:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*Boy, this troll sure is pathetic. ... It seems all he wants to do is demonize those he disagrees with and build an altar of worship to Karl Rove. What a sad individual. Eleemosynary 08:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*You're welcome, Little Baby! There are also some "stalkers" right outside your door in white coats. They have a pleasant little room for you, with soft walls and nice bars on the window so you won't hurt yourself falling out. Go with them, and you can build pretty collages celebrating Karl Rove to your heart's content! LOL! Eleemosynary 08:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*Proof positive! "Little Baby" lives in his own deluded universe, taking breaks from vandalizing Wikipedia only to travel to the drug store for hand lotion so he can better, um, "enjoy" his Ann Coulter picture collection. Duly noted! Eleemosynary 08:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

* He's also blatantly lied to you. He's been multiply reverting edits on the Ann Coulter page all day, under cover of an anonymous address/sockpuppet. Eleemosynary 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (NOTE: This charge is totally untrue and has been denounced by both myself and the person he claims is my sockpuppet. I'm sure someone knowledgable of the inner workings of Wikipedia could easily disprove this charge-bd777.)

*No need to engage this vandal, nor any of his anonymous sockpuppets. Any POV edits of his will be reverted. Eleemosynary 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll endeavor to ignore his nonsense, and just revert his POV edits until Arbitration is concluded. Thanks again for all your hard work. Eleemosynary 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RyanFreisling

Created mirror of my talk page entitled Trollspit[30] to which she adds '(trollspit, for posterity :))'

According to Paul Klenk -

*Ryan made five reverts to Karl Rove in just over 18 hours.This is her pattern: She tries to disguise her reverts by going on the offense, making unfounded accusations of vandalism, POV...I believe each of her accusations, in themselves, assume bad faith.

*I suspect that she uses bullying to scare off editors you disagree with.

*She repeats the word "vandalism" over and over, but none of BigDaddy's edits on the page are vandalism.

* Ryan's continued bullying, elbow-jabbing, and accusations of bad faith while making her 5RRs. She was fueling the war. She was disguising her reverts with her continued accusations

*(Ryan's) false accusations, and (Ryan's) attitude towards BigDaddy, have clearly played a part in the many heated disputes on the Rove talk page.

Woohookitty

* "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you."

Kizzle

*Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy...I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. (Very first comment to me. bd777) --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

According to user 64.154.26.251, Kizzle and his accomplices have harassed me on the Ann Coulter page. "They reverted all your recent contributions for the sole purpose of imposing a make-believe "sanction" on you unauthorized by any administrator of Wikipedia." 64.154.26.251 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC

User Kizzle is the individual who replaced a photo of President Bush here[31] with a tight close-up photo of a pierced penis. He has fully admitted to deliberately engaging in this vandalism for the expressed purposes of getting banned because he's a self-described 'Wikaholic' and was unable to stop posting of his own accord.

NightMonkey

*I am a fan of debate, and love the challenge it presents. I believe that editing and hashing out discussions on Wikipedia...will help me to... understand the thinking of people I may disagree with, disagree with civility and gain a more well-rounded understanding of various political and social beliefs. --NightMonkey 06:36, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

*"Hey, I have an idea, BD. Why don't you start your own blog? You can rant all day there...A month of this crap is enough. --NightMonkey 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*I was going to copy and paste ... your exhortation on the RfC Talk page to ignore BD's Talk page diatribes and revert BD's low quality edits, ... Personally, I think it is a very good idea. --NightMonkey 08:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

And finally, here are the comments of someone I consider a very wise user that's understood what's been going on from the beginning. (He is frequently harassed too, by the way.)

Gator1

*Now the threats...what a surprise. All of this from an RFC that they said wasn't meant to punish you....now if you don't respond to them or bend to their will and tell them what they want to hear then it "could get much more serious." This IS a joke and will go nowhere as its unfounded and completely unwarranted. Next thing you know, they're going to start threatening me ... Some people just make me sad...Gator1 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Despite a reasonable motion to suspend the RFC, Hipo still wants his pound of flesh and Kizzle, depsite making the motion, quickly reverses himself when he sees Hipo's very rationale response ("no"). It's clear what the whole thing is about. I have removed the RFC page from my watchlist as it is a complete waste of my time. Gator1 02:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

They wanted you to change your behavior...you did and they said they wanted you to respond....you did....and now they'll set the bar higher once again and say you didn't respond with the right words and kiss all their butts ("I'm sorry...I suck...please forgive me.....I'll be good, I promise.....etc").....this is a very familiar pattern...Gator1 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My Comments

What the users who have most significantly animated this process have demonstrated most notably is their utter contempt for Wikipedia policies themselves, be it demonstrated through what some would consider pornographic page vandalism, multiple-revert bullying, or incessant personal attacks and stalking.

It was not stubborness that gave me pause in addressing this process. But rather the certain knowing that there's a difference between someone sincerely wanting to help you succeed at Wikipedia, like user ngb for example, and someone just wanting to 'get you' because they don't like you upsetting the status quo.

The unvarnished truth is that, in every single instance, those wishing to stifle my influence in Wikipedia have a political agenda. It is curious that I get along so well with the conservative editors who have worked with me on various articles. Not one of them has affirmed these charges. It's also interesting to observe the acrimony-free manner in which various editors and I have worked on topics as sensitive as religion in the Ann Arbor Michigan article. Surely, if even a tiny percentage of what's alleged about me were true, it would show up in edits where I'm dealing with the sensitive topic of Christianity with non-believers. It's only in political (primarily conservative) commentators columns that I've been maligned and it's only non-conservatives who have done the maligning.

User Paul Klenk has worked long and hard to educate me on how to work within the Wikipedia community. He has also spent an extraordinary (and thankless) amount of time defending me against these charges. But, why? Is he a defender of incivility? Does Paul Klenk champion the right to bully, intimidate and hassle? Or is it that he simply finds it distasteful when a new editor is marginalized by charges his very accusers are guilty of?

It has been said "Hell hath no fury as a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle." In this matter, the moral principle is my alleged disruptive behavior. And yet the key to uncovering the vested interest is found in the 'moral principle' itself. It is my critics interest that articles about conservatives be kept from more careful scrutiny. Thus, any such efforts by someone with my unflinching disdain for bias will always be perceived as disruptive.

---

I am therefore asking that arbitration be ruled in my favor so I can continue the excellent work I have begun. I also ask that user Eleemosynary be banned from Wikipedia for a period of at least one year for engaging in willful, acknowledged and unrepentant personal attacks, a disturbing pattern of stalking, false sock puppet allegations, malicious reverts and a general disdain for anything that comes even remotely close to building community cohesion.

Finally, I propose that significant and widespread efforts be launched immediately to actively recruit conservative editors to work on controversial political topics at Wikipedia. It is my hope that never again will a conservative editor have to endure the brazen hostility and withering gang-partisan attacks that I have withstood without a countervaling support system.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

1. Accept Fred Bauder 13:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Accept ➥the Epopt 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Accept. James F. (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Further comments

I would like to see somewhere on the main page:

Plaintiffs allege BigDaddy777:

• Has made an extreme amount of personal attacks.
• Has been extremely uncivil.
• Has deliberately made statements intended to provoke hostility (trolling).
• Has persistently edit warred.
• Has made POV edits.
• Has occassionally vandalized articles.

Or something like that. Just a summary of all the rules BigDaddy has broken, listed from top to bottom in order of importance and severity. Also I think it is very important to note the extreme nature of BigDaddy's personal attacks and incivility. Both issues are not normal because of the sheer amount of infractions and the incredibly venomous language used in many incidents. Mr. Tibbs 06:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You can modify your own statement to reflect these allegations if I'm not mistaken. --kizzle 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment on my comment

The following text appears at the top of the RFArb:

Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Recognizing that my comment will probably not be very useful, I'd like to repost the following, which I put on the original request before the RFArb was accepted (and probably did not put in the right place):

• Comment: BigDaddy contacted me privately to assert that my comment had been quoted as evidence that another conservative editor had maligned him or called him out for his behavior. Looking at the actual citation, however, I don't see any comments on what I said, so I do not believe Kizzle was necessarily asserting this. It should be known that I came across BigDaddy completely at random and, with no knowledge of his editing history, posted an encouragement from one conservative to another to work within the rules of Wikipedia. I just wanted to state for the record, in case there was any confusion, that my comment to BigDaddy does not reflect any knowledge of or opinion about his behavior on Wikipedia which, as far as I know, may be anywhere from exemplary to reprehensible. Jdavidb 16:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To sum up, I just want to say that my comment to BigDaddy should not be construed as implying that I looked at his actions and made any conclusions, not that I think anyone is necessarily construing it that way.

Since the RFArb does say comments will be read in full, I'd like to ask that one of the arbitrators please post a quick note here saying "read it," or something to that affect. Sorry if I've taken up more time than this is worth. :)

Jdavidb 18:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jdavidb, I just quoted your entire post to BigDaddy on his talk page verbatim in my statement on the main arb page, I didn't interpret it or re-word it in any way. Thank you for your comments here :) --kizzle 18:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Kizzle; no biggie. BTW, if anyone thinks it would help, I would love to help BigDaddy or any other conservative who feels they are being persecuted learn how to play nice at Wikipedia. Not sure if I have the time or the patience, but I'd love to help. Jdavidb 18:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The initial RfC filed against him was put on hold when Paul Klenk tried to mentor him, but despite his incredibly noble efforts, I don't think it had any effect. You're free to try though. --kizzle 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for a signature of one of the arbitrators indicating that my comment above has been read, please.

Additionally, I am now more familiar with BigDaddy's case, and I'd like to state that the list of his alleged sockpuppets that I saw drawn up somewhere sounded ludicrous for several reasons, chiefly that their editing patterns did not match his at all. (I want to avoid making personal attacks, but honestly he doesn't sound as intelligent as the people on that list.) It almost sounds as if some people automatically assume all conservative new users must be the same person because surely there couldn't be that many of those nasty stupid conservatives in the world. In particular, I saw Barneygumble around here a long time ago and he was nothing like BigDaddy, last I checked. Jdavidb 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To the Arbcom members

How much more do we have to put up with this clearly hostile user? Seriously. This is not because BD is a conservative, but because he's a highly aggressive user who does not know how to play nice with those he works with, and has even admitted he has been in this situation countless times before. I think I speak for an enormous amount of people when I say I'm personally sick of absorbing his vitriol. Something needs to be done, soon. For goodness sake, on an RfA filed against him because he personally attacks people, he called one of the co-signers a "brain surgeon"! --kizzle 18:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I was feeling patient until I started seeing BigDaddy throwing around charges of racism today. Remember, the point here is to protect Wikipedia, not the rights of one particularly troublesome and hostile editor. Can any reasonable argument be made that BD has on net made a positive contribution to wikipedia? No. And I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. Let him go play nicely on the Teletubbies page, not on pages where he has already ground his axe to a sliver. Derex @ 22:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at his contributions? In almost one thousand edits, there is not one single article-space edit that is not to a political article. NOT ONE. BD is here for one reason, and one reason only, POV warrioring. EVERY single other author on those pages — liberal, conservative, communist, or libertarian; newbie or old hand — has contributions elsewhere and lots of them. I've had it, I told him so. I'm done. I'll be back when BD is gone. He just got blocked for a week, so cancel the melodramatic storm-out. Derex @ 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)