Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

message: 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)
thread_title:  Involved parties 

message: Ever since BigDaddy777's very first edit, he has subjected Wikipedia to an unrelenting tirade of personal attacks, uncivil rhetoric and edit warring. User after User after User has attempted to parley with BigDaddy777 and persuade him to follow Wikipedia's rules, they have all failed. Instead of improving his behavior, BigDaddy has used this new knowledge of Wikipedia policy to try and game the system. BigDaddy has succeeded in baiting other users and forcing several articles into reversion wars, or even page protection while completely ignoring the consensus regarding his extremely POV edits. 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Mr. Tibbs 

message: BigDaddy777 is a classic internet troll who communicates by chiding, threatening, blustering and accusations . 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 . -- RyanFreisling @ 03:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Ryan Freisling 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Statement by Eleemosynary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Derex|Derex]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by NightMonkey 

message: 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.  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".  has the original comments made by kizzle under "Arbitration requested". --Woohookitty 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Woohookitty

message: 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.</b> Eleemosynary 09:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Big Daddy 777 

message: # Accept Fred Bauder 13:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Just wanted to comment on my comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To the Arbcom members