Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BigDaddy777

message: NGB - if you make headway and BD777 improves as to make this RFC moot, then the RFC will be moot. Like I said - I welcome such a result, and think it would be the best of all possible worlds. I lookforward to the appreciable improvement in results. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGB's view 

message: I do not appreciate the most recent opposer's behavior on this RFC. Bringing up things from 6 months ago about one of 19 cosigners is totally irrelevent. Doing it anonymously is even worse.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "one of the 19 cosigners", it's the initiator of the Request.  Way to try and trivialize his importance.  And when we see an initiator demanding that a fellow wikipedian adhere to standards that he himself does not live up to, it's evidence of bad faith on the part of the initiator.  And the icing on the cake is that you insist I use a user ID after the initiator had followed a Wikipedian around with a user ID for two weeks "garbage collecting" the angry parts of his conversations without providing any context for what might have inspired the anger (it might have been outrageous behavior, and thus justified).  64.154.26.251 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of your response framed the evidence section as in accord with WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, or WP:AGF?  Oh that's right, you're not opposing this RfC based upon the merits of the case but rather because I hurt your feelings 6 months ago which I already apologized for. --kizzle 23:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent opposer: 

message: I will go over the improved behavior bits you noted, but please do not edit the sections you do not aggree with.
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)
replies: text: quotes added by paul klenk 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: quotes added by paul klenk 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I truly hope BigDaddy appreciates the tremendous amount of effort you have put forth to help him. --kizzle 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To review 

message: OK, I believe it is Wednesday everywhere on Earth, even "on the road". Will the Motion to Suspend be withdrawn? --NightMonkey 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to Suspend Suspended? 

message: Many of this RFCs sections are clearly marked to indicate that discussion should happen on only this Talk page, yet, as you can see, discussions have erupted everywhere. Please keep the disussions where they belong. I know that this is probably going to be filed under "Fat Chance", but can the errant discussions on the RFC be moved here? Pretty please? --NightMonkey 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep discussion here 

message: Please do no refactor and move comments around and rearrange parts of the page.  I know it's temping to, but doing so makes it more confusing for impartial persons to ascertain the substantial, material reasons for the RfC and to see how things have developed.  Calicocat 05:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not refactor the page, please 

message: Kizzle, you rescinded your motion to suspend, and added a "vote" to send this to an RfA. I'm ignorant of how these things work, but is calling a vote to do that part of the RfC process, and does the vote have standing? I just want to know before I "vote". --NightMonkey 05:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA vote - kosher? 

message: *"Ps I've enlisted the help of a WHOLE LOT of conservatives to watch and observe what goes on in here and to report it across the blogosphere. There were informed just how treacherous and mean spirited (not to mention 'incivil' lol!) the liberal editors have been to Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson etc etc (the list goes on forever.  I want you liberal POV editors to know that your sliming, defaming and distorting of the truth will no longer be tolerated in Wikipedia. In the future, I'd kindly suggest going to democraticunderground and howl at the moon. I've been informed that all this DISinformation you've been putting out there is TOTALLY against the spirit and intent of Wik and it's founder Jimmy Wales vision. - 
*"I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted." - 
*In response to a  message left by Hipocrite, BigDaddy777 responded: "Man, you know there is a SYSTEMIC problem at Wik when they have someone like Hippocrite give you the official greeting! I have found Hippocrite to be biased, vindictive, grudge-bearing and incompetent in her/his command of the facts on multiple occasions in the mere week or so that I've been here." - 
*"Sheesh,like I've said when I first was introduced to your work, you have NO BUSINESS editing in Wikipedia. {Jimmy} Wales, a former options trader, said he considered an academic peer-reviewed site before founding Wikipedia four years ago. Instead, he bet on the wisdom of amateurs, depending on simple ethics like "anyone can edit any page," "a neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- in other words, every fact must be attributed to recognized, ****IMPARTIAL*** sources. " and here's the link - Not just 'notable' but recognized and IMPARTIAL. Got it? Good. " 
*"{a section is} coming out until you find some legit IMPARTIAL sources. Sorry, when it comes to left wing versions vs Karl Rove's version, you're gonna lose every time. It's coming out and don't touch it. You've been warned." 
*The user in question has begun systematically deleting my comments , after I deleted one of his more vicious personal attacks ,,. This behavior on his part is unacceptable, is disrupting Wikipedia, is utterly without relevance to the article content itself, and is escalating. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of disputed behavior after the filing of this RFC 

message: Hi, all. So, I've signed where I need to sign, and so have many others, except, of course, for the star of this mind-numbing show. So, if there's no real progress made by the existence of this RfC, and the user who triggered it has effectively stalled the process, is this how it ends? How long does this have to go on? I had the impression that repeated user misbehavior on Wikipedia actually had some real consequences, but that doesn't seem to be the case, presently. I seem to recall earlier instances where users were getting banned for much less. This user's ongoing uncivil behavior doesn't really make for fun editing. Is there an RfA in the works? I know many of you have put alot of work into this RfC, and thank you for it. But, am I being too impatient? --NightMonkey 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A request for arbitration will be called for, where he will indeed get banned unless he responds. --Woohookitty 09:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The point of this RfC? 

message: This RFC has been running for rather a long time, and is not achieving any results, based on the fact that new editors are still endorsing kizzle/Hipocrite's position. It is, however, breeding a lot of ill-feeling between certain editors, not including BigDaddy. Whilst I realise that some degree of disagreement will always happen in an RFC, it's gotten to the stage where new RFCs are drawing ever-nearer. I really think that this ought to be drawn to a close as soon as possible, given the overall negative effect its length has had. Move proceedings on to arbitration (I think it's clear that this is not going to be solved by the parties who have attempted to do so, and arbitration therefore seems logical), or close the RFC with the recommendation that BigDaddy follow Wikipedia's guidelines, especially concerning NPOV, CIVIL and AGF. Either way, let's not allow this RFC to degenerate further into a protracted argument with no positive benefits for any that are involved. At least, that's how I feel about it. --Sanguinus 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. I basically echo these sentiments. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not stall. 

message: Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitration request has been accepted and the case has been opened. Mr. Tibbs 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BigDaddy777|Arbitration Requested]]