Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence

message: User:Viper_Daimao is a unique user as demonstrated more than enough on his talk page. The sockpuppet witchunt has to stop. It's a distraction, it looks absurd on it's face, and it's just not relevent to the presented pre-RFAr behavior. The sockpuppets have not been used to violate 3rr repeatedly and intentionally, they have not voted. If they do exist, they are harmless. Let it go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that.  Even if BD did use sockpuppets, there are far more serious things to consider than just that. --kizzle 19:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Kizzle, word for word. Jdavidb (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree at this point. The back and forth has become more of a distraction than anything else, and I trust the arbitrators to sort everything out on their own. I'm glad editors sought to address the point, but we've probably reached diminishing returns now. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I think we need to point out somewhere that even after this arbitration came about, he is STILL being belligerent. In other words, he's not trying to temper his words or make any attempt to collaborate with others. it's mentioned in several places, but I think we need to emphasize it somewhere. Most of this altering of posts thing has come after this process started. --Woohookitty 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Something I think we need to emphasize

message: You tried to build a case against me but didn't have squat. Your only theoretical charge - incivility, can be matched post for post by my very accusers who, using obscenity, repeated harassment and false accusations, are easily just as guilty (to any objective observer) if not FAR more so. Ryan repeatedly accused me on Karl Rove of page 'vandalism' (as thoroughly documented by Paul Klenk) but didn't bring it up once here. Why not? You'd think with every burp and belch I've uttered in the last 30 days documented in 'evidence' Ryan would rush to accuse me of vandalizing the Karl Rove page. So why didn't she? Because it was a false charge. She dared not bring it up.
In fact, RyanFreisling's actions in that instance was a textbook example of true 'trollery' as the apparently troll-obsessed Ryan would put it. She edited my reasonable posts without explanation and then accused me of vandalism to provoke hostility. For the record, that's an accurate definition of a troll. I provide this important information since you guys apparently don't have a clue. (From what I can tell, you think a troll is defined as 'any conservative who tries to edit Wikipedia.' Or is that a sockpuppet? I don't know, you're so all over the board, it's hard to keep up with what you mean anymore.)
So, you had no real evidence other than a rehashing of a laundry list of self-evident truths about liberals I posted that Mr.Tibbs who just MAGICALLY appeared out of nowhere when the witch hunt against me commenced (also pointed out by the astute Paul Klenk ) decides is evidence. And of course, this laughable notion that I have not shown a willingness to collaborate with editors of all stripes is easily refuted with evidence I've collected and documented from both the Ann Coulter and Karl Rove page as recently as this evening.
So here we have these accusers, virtually all of them guilty of FAR MORE PROVABLE incidents of incivility, personal attacks and hostile discourse, not to mention Ryan's DOCUMENTED cases of true trollery, who have nothing legit to bring against me other than some vague 'He's mean. He says we're all a bunch of liberals' charge trying to railroad me out of Wikipedia.
So, to beef up the case, you INVENTED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH this myth of sockpuppetry even going so far as accusing Gator1 or being my sockpuppet and vandalizing both of our user pages.
You had me banned for THREE DAYS which is three times too long IF I was guilty but I was not nor ever have been.
Then you implicate and waste countless hours of several OTHER COMPLETELY INNOCENT users forcing them to defend themselves against OUTRAGEOUS PARANOID DELUSIONAL FANTASIES from eelemosynnary that even the script writers at Matlock would have rejected for being too farfetched.
But, that's just the beginning. One of the 'fair' arbitrators got his hands all bloody with this mess listing IN EVIDENCE a completely bogus list of suspected sockpuppets and was later found to be discussing strategy about this case on eelmosynnary's OWN talk page. Now I know what you mean by 'collaborative effort.' (Not to mention Fred's cheap shot that I might be Ann Coulter, which in the hostile liberal culture that is Wikipedia is tantamount to saying I might be Adolf Hitler. Or, did you mean that as a compliment, Fred?)
Then something strange happens...everyone begins to realize a HORRIBLE mistake was made.
I didn't use sockpuppets.
Those guys in Texas and California or wherever were telling the truth. Even if one did work at Haliburton.  
And all those other posters you accused me of being IN THE EVIDENCE PAGE no less- Barneygumble, Leonard Watson, PAGANviking - those were all FALSE allegations too. (<I>Sheesh...You'd think at least ONE of you nuclear physicists would figure out I wouldn't use the name PAGANviking</i> - but I'm sure that elemosynnary has a 'conspiracy theory' to explain that too. lol!) I never have ever used anything but my home comcast account (and a public library when on the road) to post here. Never been inside a Haliburton facility or gotten near one of their computers.
The whole thing was a sham.
Then Fred bauder started doing this kabuki dance. All of a sudden, he' backing off the charges. Saying the results are ambiguous and using other weasel words to cover his rear.
But it was too late. The gig was up.
In your frenzied zeal to rid Wikipedia of me, you framed not only me but AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN innocent users, blocking them and their IP's.
Hippocrite was the first to get it. He realized the whole thing would unravel once people figured out these charges were bogus. He tried to warn you this hysterical story of me being at least six different people (a fable which elemosynnary still ascribes to) 'didn't matter.'
As time marched on and it begin to dawn on you that this house of cards built on quicksand was crumbling around you and in the process you completely smeared an innocent man along with several others, you began to try and DIVERT and DISTRACT from what you had just done.
And in the now completely-out-of-touch-with-reality state of mind you've driven yourselves too...all of this is apparently MY fault.
Think I'm kidding? Read this quote from user:
"Its the mark of a good troll that they can get people way too mad about things, and leads to overzealous pursuit like the Sockpuppet thing"
OK, I get it. I drove you to it. lol!!!
Anyway, it's too late now. It's all been documented and no amount of spin can get the stain out.
Try as you might to censor me, the WHOLE WORLD has seen with their very eyes how in your hateful vengeful zeal you were willing to slander, smear and falsely accuse anybody in your path if they got in the way of destroying my reputation.
I was blocked ON SLANDEROUS CHARGES for three days. Others were blocked FOR NO reason for days. <B>And you think you can just pretend this didn't happen and proceed with your witch hunt business as usual?</B>
Too late now.
Every word you use going forward to spin yourself out of this utterly
embarrassing <B>FARCE</b> that <I>you brought down on yourselves</i> will ring as hopelessly convoluted, delusional and absurd as eelemosynnarys hyperbolic stories of how I masterfully orchestrated a  multi-state sockpuppet conspiracy.
For shame. For shame. For shame. This is truly a sad day in Wikipedia history. And the worst consequences are surely yet to come...Big Daddy 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to load as much pointed trollery at me as you'd like, I'm not playing your game and you won't get your kicks. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being macho doesn't get you anywhere here. And you aren't going to scare us off or something. All you are doing is adding to your troubles. --Woohookitty 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks BD! :)  -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know what? I don't care if you are using sockpuppets. If you think that's the only solid evidence against you, you are mistaken. --Woohookitty 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have never been incivil to you. You have been incivil to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Face it...

message: I think a major point to be made here is that BD is actually getting worse, not better, especially in regards to incorrectly deleting and altering posts on his talk page. And even in arbitration, he's acting in bad faith. His posts here are obviously intended to scare his accusers off. I think it says alot to his inability to work with others that arbitration is up against him and basically all he's done is mock the process. He's said that this is a futile attempt by his liberal enemies to stop his "spreading the word" and all of that. He still isn't really taking this process seriously and I think that should be held against him when the time to come to a decision arrives. I'm about to add his mockings to the evidence... --Woohookitty 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely Agree with Woohookitty. The lenience Wikipedia has thus far shown towards BigDaddy's unconscionable behavior has only served to embolden BigDaddy to make even more vicious personal attacks and to show even less regard for Wikipedia policy. BigDaddy's posts on this very page are proof of this. Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention what happened on mine and his talk pages this evening. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Since I added it to the evidence page, she doesn't need to. --Woohookitty 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Something the arbitrators need to consider 

message: We don't need any more. --Woohookitty 07:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No more sockpuppet evidence

message: A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles.
He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.
He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.
When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .
That about right? 
Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a Summary

message: A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles.
He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.
He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.
When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .
That about right? 
Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a Summary

message: BigDaddy777 has been blocked indefinitely. And now's spewing sockpuppetes. Edith mykok is the first. I'm pretty sure he was the Qwertys as well. It can't be a coincidence. No way. And we have Edith mynok as well. This doesn't prove that he used all of the other sockpuppets. Anyway, we will probably need help in stopping him. here is his last major post. I think even Gator and Paul klenk will be shocked. By the way, hopefully his supporters won't let him use their usernames or else we'll stop that too. This is over. --Woohookitty 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a clue what these "funding sources" are he's supposedly going after?  Just curious. Derex @ 01:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Derex, as far as I know Wikipedia is funded by private donations. And no, I don't think BigDaddy is capable of actually tracking down the donors and convincing them that Wikipedia is unworthy of donations. Probably all his bluster will amount to is some angry posts on other message boards. But that doesn't change the fact that he threatened Wikipedia itself. - Mr. Tibbs 01:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There's still a process to go through.  As it stands, any admin can undo this decision.  I'm not totally comfortable with the idea of indefinite blocks - I would much prefer the ArbComm to rule on this matter.  Guettarda 02:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As would I. This has been a lot of work, maintaining and presenting the evidence. It's important this process come to a correct and full resolution. For example, the 3RR report I filed has seen no response by admins as of yet - the indefinite block notwithstanding, there should be an above-board approach to 'wrapping all this up'. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. We need some sort of final resolution. I mean, I don't want to be on "red alert" forever for this. --Woohookitty 02:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As any one of hundreds of administrators can unblock him, our practice is to just leave a righteous block in place and close the case until someone unblocks them or they resurface as another user. The theory being that if not one of hundreds of administrators will unblock them there is community consensus on the point. Fred Bauder 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do agree with you that this is community concensus, I believe this sets an undesired precedent that might make people skip the dispute resolution process altogether and find an admin who will simply block the user.  We should finish this up regardless based upon the evidence so that the dispute resolution process itself is respected and upheld. --kizzle 17:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Moreover, should the block ever be lifted, and the abuse continue on, this RfA should not have been a waste of time... -- RyanFreisling @ 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: BigDaddy had plenty of opportunity to defend himself up until RedWolf's ban. Instead of presenting evidence and acting civilly, he continued personally attacking other users on this very talk page. He even went after Fred Bauder: "One of the 'fair' arbitrators got his hands all bloody with this mess listing IN EVIDENCE a completely bogus list of suspected sockpuppets and was later found to be discussing strategy about this case on eelmosynnary's OWN talk page. Can you say compomised? (Not to mention his cheap shot that I might be Ann Coulter, which in the liberal culture of Wikipedia is akin to saying I might be Adolf Hitler.)" . I would however like to see the Arbitration Committee make some decision in this case. Even if it's only a vote saying whether or not RedWolf made the right call. - Mr. Tibbs 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We will vote to close the case, but after a short delay to see if there is anyone who unblocks. We have a great deal of other work to do. Fred Bauder 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred, I appreciate that you have a lot of work to do besides this case, but what makes me want to go through arbitration again if I can just find a sympathetic admin to ban who I disagree with? --kizzle 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is NOT what kizzle said. kizzle's point is that what happens if BD finds a sympathetic admin and gets unblocked? We want to end this once and for all. I don't believe kizzle was defending BD here. --Woohookitty 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll say it. It looked like you solicited a friend to block BigDaddy for you. Your friend then complied with a draconian series of blocks. Why was all that necessary? Anyway I assume BigDaddy could get one of several admins to unblock him if he wanted. I've seen worse people get unblocked to finish their arbitrations. In that sense its his decision not to continue defending himself. 67124etc 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll say you haven't "looked" carefully.  Redwolf24 gave BD a temporary block for disruption.  That was clearly justified in my opinion; BD had gone far beyond the norms of civility that last day.  I was outraged at the smears and very personal attacks he was making against people here.  He was virtually begging for another block ... and if you read his latest email and talk page you'll see that, indeed, that was explicitly his intent.  Nonetheless, that block could have been lifted or lowered by any other admin, if it was seen as unfair.  Now, as to the "draconian" indefinite block, that has not a thing to do with the matter brought to arbitration ... civility.  That is an explicit threat to attack Wikipedia through its funding, apparently a very sincere threat.  If that isn't deserving of an indefinite block, then what in god's name might be?  That's why no other admin has lifted it.  So, to characterize this as a hatchet job by Woohookitty's buddy is untrue, insulting, thoughtless, and ignorant of the history of this case.  That's just my opinion of course. Derex @ 14:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one was "solicited". Redwolf asked me why my Wikimood was set at "I quit/I need a vacation" and I answered. The block wasn't solicited. Redwolf did it because he was an outsider and to him, BD needed to be blocked. --Woohookitty 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I concur with this.  My understanding is that BD has been de facto banned permanently for threatening wikipedia, with self-evidently sincere intent.  That is completely beyond the scope of this proceeding.  Since the proceeding is essentially moot now, I see no problem with it being closed without prejudice.  Should BD for some reason return, either through a lift of the block or under a new name, re-open it and finish it off.  It's not fair to try him in absentia, but there's no reason to let him back in order to have a trial either ... he's gone and for far worse stuff than the basis for this arbitration.  Of course, I only speak for myself, and not for anyone else who brought the case. Derex @ 15:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's fine I guess, I'm just wondering why the f I did all that work for arbitration in the first place if I just had to find a sympathetic admin. Next time I'll just bypass the whole arbitration step completely. --kizzle 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the thing is, I don't think that an indefinite block of BD would have stood just based on the evidence presented.  A sympathetic admin will only get you so far; all BD had to do was email a few admins complaining about a permablock — it almost surely would have been reduced to a week or so.  I also doubt that arbcom would have issued a permanent one either, based on what I've seen in the past.  Maybe I'm wrong.  My view is that BD took it to a whole different level by threatening Wikipedia as a whole.  That's why no one has lifted the block, and probably no one will.  So, he did to himself what arbitration probably wouldn't have done.    The work wasn't wasted, however, because it stands in support of the block ... no one's going to write it off as a one-time incident.  Also, BD probably would not have self-destructed without this process.  He knew he was going down, and decided to make as big a production as possible out of it.  So, I for one thank all of you who did the heavy lifting in putting this case together.  Derex @ 03:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just so everyone knows

message: So far, we've had Edith Mykok, Edith Mynok and now 68.201.249.35. Watch out for any IPs starting with 68. Others are better at this than I am, but BD has never been subtle. --Woohookitty 09:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: actually I suspect Eleemosynary there. Note the anon picking on Gator again for example. 67124etc 05:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  Wow... someone's still smarting from being exposed as a sockpuppet.--Eleemosynary 06:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets BD is using

message: BD emailed this to me. I know it's not normal to post emails here, but in this case, I think it's appropriate.
"What was so frustrating with BD is that if he behaved, I know he could get done alot of what he wanted to get done."
Don't worry my little liberal weenie friend.
I'm JUST STARTING to get 'done alot of what I wanted to get done.'
Remember, the whole world is watching. Well, at least the conservative and non-liberal donors from the donor list are!
Your pal,
Big Daddy
Ps In case you and your delusional buddies are wondering. No, I NEVER used any sockpuppets. And No, I haven't and will not be using any in PHASE II.  (PHASE II is going after the money until things change.) So, tell your little friends in arbcom to take off their head-to-toe Star Wars Jedi Counsel costumes, and call their mom cause it's time to do your homework.
 Do you know that redwolf guy who blocked me is 15 years old and currently under his own 'dungeons and dragons moot court for failed law students' aka arbitration himself? LOL!
And as much fun as I've had, I have a feeling PHASE II will be a lot more fun...and fruitful! Who knows, maybe the conservatives I contact will divert the funds they were GOING  to donate to Wik and send it to the 700 Club or Focus on the Family. So get ready for even longer stretches of
Wik server downtimes. And please think of me in only the nicest possible ways when you do. After all, my work in Wikipedia has just begun. And this time it'll be GROWNUPS makind the decisions (with their pursestrings) and not a bunch of bohemian-beer-bonging bozos with a sinclair 64 on their lap...  BD
:Sigh.... --kizzle 03:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what's a "sinclair 64"?  ... i like to at least understand insults tossed my way.  now beer bongs i've met, in my teens. Derex @ 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just used one of those last night :) --kizzle 06:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find amusing is that Redwolf is infinitely more mature than BD will ever be. --Woohookitty 07:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to get this arbcom finished now

message: LOL!
A Tad bit defensive on me busting JamesMLane on his anti-Semetic Jew-baiting, huh?
Ouch! That's gonna cost Wikipedia...big time.
Gotta love the history tab. It will be entered into evidence.
And not into some  dufas 'dungeons and dragons play court for failed pre-law students' that you nuclear physicists call 'arbitration' either.
I hope you don't think I took any of the seriously. PHASE II (go after the money) was in place and just waiting for the final chunk of proof I could take to the donors.
This time EVERYONE will know Wikipedia's dirty little secret.
Especially the donors. And they won't buy your kooky nonsensical spin.
For Shizzle!
Big Daddy
Ps I want to encourage you brain surgeons to  keep tilting at windmills and  tracking down all 'my' sockpuppets. It literally provides us with HOURS of LOL entertainment!
:Such a nice man. --Woohookitty 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't worry. The world is watching after all. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  my wonderful email 

message: BD used an IP address of  to get around his banishment. he's used it before. I went ahead and blocked it and I let Fred and the arbies know about it. Just giving you guys a heads up. --Woohookitty 05:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads up to everyone