User:RyanFreisling/Klunkbits

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (BigDaddy777 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
is a new editor to Wikipedia who is either unable or unwilling to try to work with the community. While some of the changes he makes to politically loaded articles head towards improving the quality, they are surrounded with talk page behavior that serves to inflame disputes, and other article space edits that are little more than POV pushing. While the passion he shows for his subjects is admirable, I feel that it is important that we try to work together rather than apart, to that end, I have filed this RFC to get a full spectrum of perspectives about how BD777, and minority editors in general, can best prosecute their case without prosecuting their opposition.

I would like to note that I believe that this issue is easily solvable with just a few slight modifications to behavior. This RFC is an attempt to get the community to help convince BD777 that his behavior is in no way helping to improve this project, or even push his POV into article space. I would hope that he takes the advice contained herein to heart, and becomes the productive contributor that I saw the promise for when I first tried to moderate his behavior. He needs to stop reporting people and playing games and instead make articles better.

As an additional note, this RFC also serves to inform BD777 that he needs to stop putting newlines between each of his sentences on talk pages.

Description
User:BigDaddy777 is a new contributor to Wikipedia who has failed to assume good faith, engages in personal attacks, and is generally uncivil. While it seems he has valuable contributions to add to Wikipedia in balancing out what he perceives to be a liberal bias on Wikipedia (which is a view shared by many), he unfortunately emphasizes polemics over arguments to make his point. Typically large, the content of his edits on the talk pages generally consist of one or two small changes sandwiched between name-calling, attacking other editors, and exhibiting a complete lack of good faith on his part. In the few short days he has been on Wikipedia (first edit on September 1st), he seems to be highly bitter about his perception of Wikipedia's liberal bias and insists it is intentionally kept this way.

An illustrative example is seen in his unfortunate disagreement with cosponsor Kizzle.

In an isolated post on the divisive Talk Page for Cindy Sheehan, BD777 wrote this:
 * "Has anyone jumped the shark quicker than Cindy Sheehan? Thanks to Matt Drudge and Fox News revealing her true feelings about Israel and Bush, she's now got ZERO following. 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?" -

This is just on example of the worthless political point scoring that typifies BD777's first contribution to a talk page - it's designed to inflame other editors to attack. Please note that this talk page contribution was totally unrelated to any article space contribution - it seemed more like a message board contribution.

Sadly, editor Kizzle bit:
 * "Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy, it's always fun to hear accusations of the left-wing wiki cabal. I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll." -

Having hooked his liberal, BD777 bored in:
 * ''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.

Kizzle, realizing that he might have overstepped what was appropriate, offered to withhold my previous label if he would withold his personal attacks:
 * "As for "firing a shot across the bow" at you, I really really hate it when people complain that there is some secret organization of liberals that "control the content", and it did seem that you were soliciting a hostile response, as in the very definition of trolling. You certainly weren't trying to be civil. But I will withdraw my previous label of troll if you withdraw your personal attacks." -

But that was to little too late, and since this exchange, BD777 has unleashed an unrelenting tirade of personal attacks. This pattern of behavior typifies his relations.

BigDaddy continues to deride and attack those who disagree with him and it does not seem that his tirades will slow down anytime soon. I personally have pleaded with him more than several times to stop hostilities towards his fellow editors, thus while I do not want to bite the newcomer, I feel that he has been warned far more than his share.

Once again, please keep in mind that this is not a discussion about the content of BigDaddy's edits in the article space but rather his conduct around other editors. NPOV is not the only policy here at Wikipedia. Just because this RfC does not deal with edits in the article space does not mean certain other official policies guidelines are being abused. If you truly believe this RfC is filed incorrectly, than it is incumbant upon you to frame the following quotes as in accord with No Personal Attacks and Civility, two official policies on Wikipedia.

Evidence of disputed behavior
The following section is just a snippet of BigDaddy's "style" of discourse, note that it has only taken 9 days to rack up what is on this list, which represents about half of BigDaddy's hostile comments.


 * "What the heck is this - the winner of the essay competition in the Special Olympics???" -
 * "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." -
 * "Sheesh what is it with you WackiWiki Liberals???" -
 * "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." -
 * "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..." -
 * "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!" -
 * "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!" -
 * "I attacked the writing. Which was retarded." -
 * "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." -
 * "But, it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann..." -
 * "Wow!...you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand...dontcha?" -
 * "All this says to me that those folks are completely UNqualified to be editors..." -
 * "To suggest that it is **I** who am bringing a POV to this HATCHET JOB + would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic." -
 * "I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you don't have a clue." -
 * "My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left." -
 * "I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities)" -
 * "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.)" -
 * "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." -
 * "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!'???" -
 * "Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health..." -
 * "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"??" -
 * "You might have better luck trying that argument in metafilter. I see thru insincere drivel like this as if it was saran wrap." -
 * ''"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) -
 * ''"Your great hate is apparently driving some of you insane." -
 * 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 -
 * "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 wonder why Kizzle didn't take Ryan to task for 'personal attacks'? Could it be that the one attacked was a Republican??" ''
 * Attack rants accusing POV, and numerous groundless accusations of stalking.
 * ''"I took out this POV POS - {...} It is suspected? It is SUSPECTED?????? And you liberals are busy trouncing some conservative guy for his POV? Have you no shame. This is by far the most one sided left wing slime hit piece I've found in Wik...even topping Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson's (and believe me, that's hard to do.)
 * ''"WHERE IS YOUR PROOF for ANY of these PARANOID LEFT WING DELUSIONAL FANTASIES of yours???
 * "I heard on the radio today that 'It is suspected' Karl Rove Drove a Helicopter up into Katrina and, using a specially made top secret machine from Haliburton, SEEDED the clouds so that Katrina would only come down and destroy BLACK people's houses. Want to put THAT in this article too??? Big Daddy" 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ''"Added source from Boston Globe as per your request and reinstated the passage. --kizzle 22:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * "First of all, for the second time, QUIT stalking me." (Big Daddy) 

Applicable policies
Please note, the fact that this RfC does not target BigDaddy's misuse of the NPOV policy does not mean that other official policies and guidelines are being abused.


 * No Personal Attacks
 * There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
 * Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:
 * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
 * Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi
 * Profanity directed against another contributor.
 * Threats of legal action
 * Death threats.
 * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.


 * Assume Good Faith
 * To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on any wiki, including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning


 * Civility
 * Civility is a rule here on Wikipedia. Whereas incivility is defined here as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another.
 * Our Wikipedia Community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles &mdash; the first being neutral point of view. The second is a demand for a reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if "civility" is just an informal rule, it's the only term that can apply, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
User:Hipocrite tries to restore normality: (BD777 had racked up quite a page of test warnings)    

He's rebuked: 

Tries again: 

No response. User:Hipocrite goes to another contentious article, and tries the same approach: 

The response from BD777 is offputting - "let's get it on" is language you use for a fight, not a collaberation. That's the least of the problem: 

Tries to show BD777 how to disagree thoughtfully: 

But that advice is ignored for yet another "Liberals" screed: 

Which gets the "why don't you fix it, then": 

The response is that his changes don't stick: 

So I'd back him up if his changes didn't suck (and I have, and I will): 

And it seems like that's going to work. But it dosent: 

I try to refocus on the change, not the liberals. 

But then the threat to go and mess up other pages is more obvious: 

I tell him to talk about changes to the article, and repeat my suggestion: 

This pattern countinues (Hipocrite: What's wrong with the article? Suggest some changes please. BigDaddy777: Liberal bias is ruining wikipedia) for editor after editor, comment after comment. Eventually it's not "liberal bias," but "you, and your liberal editor friends." Some other example of others trying desperatly to get BD777 to talk about edits, not editors and reporting people:


 * I'd also like to clear up another misunderstanding that I think you have. There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia who "greenlight" content, and Wikipedia does not "give approval" for certain passages. We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be. Not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." Instead, merely bring it up here with a concise, logical argument as to why it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Look at Paul Klenk, Mongo, Noitall (most of the time), they are conservative editors who try to discuss changes with those they disagree with rather than attack them. Don't inflame the situation here by turning it into a left/right war or claiming that conservative viewpoints are suppressed. There are several conservative editors here who are successful at getting their content inserted into articles because they politely discuss their changes through logical arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. -
 * ...My point is not debatable. You must conduct yourself according to Wikipedia policy (and it is a very reasonable policy) of discussing, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Like I said before, not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." If someone is harassing you, report them. Don't turn it into a justification to behave in an equal manner. -
 * "That's not how it works. There are rules and guidelines here. You don't get to deride other people and their work and force the rest of us to wade through your posts consisting of 15% reason and 85% polemics... Assume good faith, No Personal Attacks, and until you adhere to these guidelines, you are the issue. I sound like a broken record at this point: Don't use other people's bad behavior to excuse yours. It's time you learned to be civil and discuss your arguments rather than encourage hostilities around here. You still have not defended your actions but have merely responded that I am picking on you. Nobody should make these attacks, be it liberal or conservative (and you are' making these attacks, I have previously documented it), but every word that comes out of your mouth seems to be deriding someone or assumg bad faith on the rest of us. Stop now. -
 * "Seriously, unless you tone down the hostility in editing on Wikipedia, you are going to be subject to dispute resolution. I, along with several others, have pleaded for you to calm down and discuss changes without personally attacking or assuming bad faith on the part of your co-editors. Please for the love of all that is good and holy ASSUME GOOD FAITH and STOP PERSONALLY ATTACKING PEOPLE!! -

Evidence of disputed behavior after the filing of this RFC
  
 * "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)
 * The user's behavior (deletion of valid content, revert warring and inability to be civil) has now resulted in protection being applied to the Karl Rove article. He is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Don't worry girls...we'll get to the bottom of this. Let the record show that those fighting me over this point are: A) Supporting the use of BIASED AND PARTIAL sources to slam their political enemies. B) Calling Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales a liar at worst or incompetent at best for not contacting CNN and forcing them to retract that mischaracterization of Wikipedia's policies. This issue of Impartiality is a very important one. We've been discussing it all day. It's important that Wik be seen as impartial. All of my opponents in here are advocating FOR BIAS AND PARTIALITY. Jimmy Wales is on record for saying he wants IMPARTIALITY. I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?"
 * "Nice try but your days of feigning neutrality while defending Ryan's reprehensible actions yet secretly chiding her to 'give me enough rope to hang myself' are over. You've been exposed...68.40.151.220 06:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (Big Daddy)"
 * In this characteristic example of uncivil taunting, BD777 repeats almost word for word the comments made by me as his reply (and in this case, adds them above my post and accuses me of being a 'copycat'), while 'flipping' the accusations made against him onto whomever confronts him (in this case, me):
 * ''"{RyanFreisling has committed a 7RR violation} Right on this page. She also appears to be reverting sections of the article without discussion. However, I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism although I have a feeling Ryan is somewhat of a copycat in this regard. Big Daddy 04:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "{BigDaddy777 has committed a 5RR violation} I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"
 * Disregard for policy and admin input. Despite an admin's careful advice, continued to accuse me of personal attacks and bad faith for my reverts of his outright (unsubstantiated) deletions of entire sections of the article - because I alledgedly 'didn't like his edits'. He did so despite direct admin advice regarding the policies underlying the issue in question:
 * "{...} BigDaddy777 did not give a well thought out rationale for removing the information he's been removing. He said he removed it because Ryan hasn't proven that it's more than an allegation. Unfortunately that's beyond the scope of our purpose here. {...} it's perfectly acceptable -- in general -- to summarize allegations made by a reputable source in a reputable publication. The proper response is not to scrub that information because it's "an unproven allegation," it's to cite another reputable source in a reputable publication that refutes that allegation. Now, that doesn't mean that every allegation should be aired. There is a mandate on fairness and balance that must be satisfied. But "you can't prove this allegation" is not a reason to delete something that's properly sourced, alone. The discussion should be about whether including that allegation (and/or the amount of space it receives) is fair and balanced or not. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"
 * "Ryan has been previously warned about the false and malicious personal attack of accusing me of vandalism when {s}he doesn't like my edits. Yet she continues to ignore this warning and continue with personal attacks. For example, she JUST wrote 'Your VANDALISM of material you don't agree with, without basis in fact, is unacceptable.' Please take appropriate action." Big Daddy 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks and bullying (all in one post, this time!):
 * ''"Sorry, the only people who think calling someone a liberal is 'a personal attack'...are liberals! lol! Now, if I were to call you a 'deranged libereral fruitcake' or 'brain-dead left wing sychophant' that would be a personal attack. But sorry, hide from who you are as you wish, neither labeling someone a liberal or conservative are considered personal attacks. Unless of course you are not a liberal in which case I will withdraw the label. You are a liberal though...aren't you?"
 * ''"And I must ignore the rest of your huffing and puffing bloviating except to remind you that there's currently a sale on all your favorite hypertension medication at drugstore.com"
 * ''"{...} no incident, no matter how crucial a role it plays in your liberal religion Rove-hating dogma, can be put into wikipedia {...}"
 * ''"But, I have bad news for you Rove haters {...}"
 * ''"That {...} has no purpose being mentioned here EXCEPT as an UNCIVIL smear."
 * "whoever HAD been keeping an eye on this story...and whoever KEEPS allowing these 'Watergate protege' smears to be put back in...has been found to be derelict in their duty." Big Daddy 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * More items, added by Paul Klenk to the 'improved behavior' section, which I feel accurately show 'disputed behavior' better than any purported improvement. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "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"
 * "In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol!"
 * "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."
 * ''"{in response to a mention of a revert (which was clearly signed)} Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know.
 * "In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts"
 * "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"

Evidence of improved behavior after the filing of this RFC


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)
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 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
 * 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?
 * In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol!
 * 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.
 * We don't have an encyclopedia if it's not fair balanced and impartial.
 * 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
 * Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?
 * In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts
 * 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
 * quotes added by paul klenk 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * 1) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) kizzle 23:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Calicocat 04:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Obnoxious POV pusher, dishonest, rude, lacks civility, does not work to build consensus, insulting.

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) In my observation, most all of BigDaddy777's postings (esp. those in "discussion") contain some phrase(s) that amount to "picking a fight" with other editors. Badagnani 19:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) BigDaddy777 has demonstrated a consistent unwillingness to treat his fellow editors with basic respect, and as outlined above, has threatened users and the wikipedia itself on numerous occasions. Regardless of the intent of this RfC, he needs to go. RyanFreisling @ 19:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Archier 22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Plasmatics 08:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) It appears that BigDaddy777 is acting as if this is a message board and not a collaborative project. Gamaliel 17:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) What Gamaliel said.  Friday (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  18:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)  Also, see my view on talk page.
 * 8) It looks to me as though BigDaddy777 has paid no regard to a number of wikiquette guidelines, favouring instead to attack other editors. --Sanguinus 00:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) BigDaddy777 has consistently shown complete disregard for various wikiquette rules, as well as a common sense of civility.  Bbatsell 08:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I completely agree.  BD777's stream of vitriol and attacks have been destructive and abusive. Eleemosynary 01:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) I also agree, though I'm more upset with BD777's lack of civility. It doesn't appear that BD777 really cares about the encyclopedic quality of the article, more about complaining about other editors. BD777 also hasn't seemed to make any real attempt at sitting down and really studying the wikipedia guidelines and proceedures. While I did do some earlier edits to the article in question, I ran fast away from any substantive work on this article (and others) as the carpet-bombing began. Look, if one is a conservative, liberal, green, statist, purple flat-earther, it doesn't matter. Remeber, we're here to build an encyclopedia for its readers, not soapbox. The guidelines are not rocket science. --NightMonkey 08:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) BigDaddy777 is clearly interested in particpating in flame wars, not encyclopedia-building. His complete unwillingness to discuss anything in a civil manner is worrisome. His potential for disruptive behavior and out-right vandalism has already been demonstrated. Dick Clark 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Persistently and gratuitously hostile to other editors.  He needs to shape up quickly or go; being a newcomer is no excuse after these repeated warnings.  There is absolutely no benefit to having an editor who, through his demeanor, makes the experience miserable for everyone else.  Derex 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside Views
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside View of Gator1
I think this entire thing is uncalled for. Bigdaddy is rough around the edges and certainly tends to get hot under the collar, but he makes coherent arguments (not vandalism or ugly talk), good edits and people just don't like the things he has to SAY and THAT is not a good enough reason for this inquiry. Just ignore him if you don't like what he has to say (I might add he keeps it to the talk apges and does not engage in edit wars even though I'm sure he would love to). But many people get just as hot under the collar right back and there not here (nor should they be). I say this entire thing needs to be called off as it is shedding a bad light on Wikipedia and the users who brought this complaint to begin with. Wikipedia is an open forum and while not evveryone is as nice as they could be all the time, Bigdaddy's comments have not, in my opinion, risen to a level that would justify this. Finally, I fear that this rfc might just reinforce many of the things that Bigdaddy has been saying about Wikipedia and other editors, which I refuse to believe. Stop this ugliness now...please.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Gator1 22:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Everything I see above is a dispute on a talk page.  That is the way it is supposed to be.  I don't see a single edit that is a problem (granted it is a long post above, so maybe I missed something).  Even the charges are rather benign.  I do not endorse RfCs filed just because you dispute such discussion.  Kizzle is is fairly genial, but can really push a POV on the political sites.  Hipocrite has shown signs of improving, but has been quite disruptive on various pages in the past.  That said, I don't think Bigdaddy has any excuse for bad language or getting nasty.  He should be warned and then end this RfC.  --Noitall 23:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Holy Cow, I agree.  This RFC is ridiculous.  Someone has way too much time on their hands. Homoneutralis 15:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) A bit overblown, but reasonable.  I generally concur with Gator1.  I truly believe this RfC is being brought in good faith, but almost everything BigDaddy has said has been on or about a talk page related to a highly disputed subject.   I am not really an outside view because I have written on the talk page in question, but I don't know where else to put this comment.  I have tried to coach BigDaddy, but I think he is getting over a learning curve and honestly doesn't get it quite yet.  WP is a very unusual culture, with tons of rules an outsider could not possibly process quickly.  I would be happy to mentor him.  However, I have not been at the talk page in a while, and things may have escalated much more since then.  I appreciate Kizzle's concerns; they are valid, and they should be addressed.  I think we need to take BigDaddy out, get him drunk, explain the rules, and welcome back after a hangover.  Conservatives and liberals will always be at odds, talking over each other and just not understanding the others' side.  It's the way we think.    paul klenk 00:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I'd be open to stalling RfC proceedings if you're willing to mentor him, Paul. Thanks for the offering, and I'd be the one to buy the first round :) --kizzle 00:40, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) LOL Kizzle is in no position to scold other users about civility.  On the talk page of the article on a female conservative commentator that Big Daddy and I worked on, Kizzle commented contemptuously on her sex life on the talk page.  ("she sleeps around all the time")  after reading a deliberate misquote from a secondary source.  After I corrected him and ask that he reveal his source so we could remove that source from the article, he wouldn't and instead claimed that I had a "crush" on the commentator.  ("sorry to talk poorly about your crush")  After I warned him not to believe everything that comes out of Washington D.C.  (line 136), he then accused the commentator of habitually engaging in oral sex .  Finally he initiates proceedings against another wikipedian based partly on that wikipedian's mild observations on the very same discussion page that he, Kizzle, made all the above comments.  ("But, it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann...")  evidence reference #13,#14, #15.  Apparently for Kizzle, restraining one's behavior is something appropriate for other users, but not for himself.  I endorse Gator1's position. 64.154.26.251 17:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) [Diffs added per request of Kizzle.] 64.154.26.251 22:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) passage deleted by Gator1 [Care to provide the diffs including your original comment? Regardless, if I attacked you as a person, I apologize.  I wouldn't dream of defending my right to personally attack others. --kizzle 19:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)]
 * 8) But why should we be interested in your views on the minutae of civility on article talk pages at all when you are so obviously willing to make such grossly inflammatory remarks? Ann Coulter, the very object of your unfounded attacks wrote a number one bestselling book on exactly this subject of defaming conservatives, Slander.  Shouldn't we look elsewhere than the poster boy for her book for advice on civility?  And how does one "assume good faith" after reading such contemptuous bias?  And don't you think all conservatives and even many moderates and liberals become angry (as expressed in the discussion sections of articles) when people who act like you unfairly attack those who defend conservative values and ideals simply because they're conservative as well as threaten to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia content (and its reputation) as well? 64.154.26.251 22:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) If you would provide some diffs I'd be happy to talk about it. --kizzle 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) They're marked 69, 70, 71, 72. Does your computer work? 64.154.26.251 23:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Yikes... clearly I hurt your feelings pretty bad. I'm not sure I see your point.  I apologized if I personally attacked you.  Is this vote against the RfC purely a vendetta gainst me, or are you truly arguing that my comments on Coulter justify other editors hostilities? My guess is the former. --kizzle 23:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) You didn't hurt my feelings; remember I laughed when you tried to insult everybody's intelligence. My point is, as Aristotle said, one of the primary means of persuasion is the character of person making the argument.  When there is such a disconnect between your words and your behavior, why should we listen to you talk about civility?  "Civility" is in the summary on the RFC listing page.  You clearly meant to address the issue.  And now you try to cloud the issue by attacking me through the fallacy of false alternatives.  Isn't it bad enough for your credibility that you clearly don't practice what what you preach here on the RFC in bold faced type and tend to aggravate disputes in progress? 64.154.26.251 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Former it is. If you want to continue this discussion, hit me up on my talk. --kizzle 00:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View of Ngb
Aside from agreeing with the substance of Gator1's comments above, I also want to dispute the statement that BigDaddy777 is unwilling or unable to engage productively with Wikipedians with differing political views, or with whom he disagrees on the content of an article.

After his admittedly poor start on Wikipedia BigDaddy777 and I have engaged in a conversation by email in which he has remained perfectly civil and taken on board my comments and suggestions about how he can improve his editing and his relations with other Wikipedians. He has shown himself eager to learn and adapt his behaviour to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I think this is reflected in a steady improvement of the quality of his edits both to articles and talk pages.

Despite the polemical tone he has adopted on talk pages I think he has in fact shown some restraint in the face of users instantly reverting many of his articlespace edits, many of which are made in good faith and are eminently defensible considering WP:NPOV, and of being harassed on his talk page by anonymous and largely spurious accusations of vandalism.

BigDaddy777 perceives a liberal bias in Wikipedia that I do not, and indeed our political persuasions could not be more different. But there is nothing in his communications with me and little in his edits to Wikipedia that suggests he is not likely to be a productive Wikipedian.

--Ngb?!? 18:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Motion to Suspend
While BigDaddy has a few more things to learn, IMHO he has toned down considerably since his first few weeks. In the spirit of such progress in my mind, I think it would help if there wasn't a current RfC filed against him. I think the RfC for now has served its purpose and has a considerable positive effect so far on BigDaddy. I do not foresee him returning to his old ways, so for now lets suspend the RfC. To BigDaddy: you have progressed considerably since the beginning, and I agree with your estimation that conservative voices are in the minority on Wikipedia. Seek concensus, be civil, cite sources (read my comments on Karl Rove talk about what sources are encouraged, you might want to read through the policies yourself to clear up any misunderstandings)... like I have said from the beginning, you definetely seem like you have some good contributions in balancing out Wikipedia. If I could just ask that your effort isn't entirely devoted towards bringing conservative voices to Wikpedia but to try to be neutral. Neutrality is something that none of us posess, not you or me, but is something aspired towards. We must be self-critical in our bias, and I will try just as you should to check the content we post. I look forward to collaborating with your newfound sense of civility. --kizzle 23:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Two last nitpicky things, don't capitalize words so much, it amounts to shouting in our faces. Second, pay attention to formatting your paragraph so its indented behind who you're replying to. --kizzle 23:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Kizzle, thank you for this wonderful gesture. It is an extremely gracious, peace-making act during a time when many others have chosen to "pile on" the RfC and fuel the fire.  If I may, I second your motion.   paul klenk 23:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No.  user persists in violating WP:AGF Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC).


 * Hmm, that whole discussion seems heated to me, its hard to pick apart who's responsible on that one, but I believe that BigDaddy is doing no worse than those he discusses with.


 * I never commented on that page, yet he attacks me on it? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh ya, just saw the sockpuppetry accusation. Sigh, once again I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but at this point only if he comments here that he has changed his behavior. --kizzle 01:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I also will not consent to the suspention of this RFC untill the user provides a response. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat on the same page as you with that. It'd be nice BigDaddy if you could just respond here and just say something along the lines as if the RfC has had any effect or if you have changed since the beginning. --kizzle 00:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

--- As a responce to Gator, nothing in this RFC has anything to do with the content or political position of BD777. It is about civility. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that position and I stand by what I said. I don't think Bigdaddy deserves this action.  That's my opinion.Gator1 22:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * BigDaddy777 gives me a daily chuckle with his CAPITALIZATION and diatribes against the unseen liberal illuminati controlling wikipedia. I can't tell if he believes the stuff he says or if he's just pushing people's buttons most of the time.  It sometimes seems that he understands the workings of wikipedia very well, but plays the fool to aggravate others (referring to wikipedia "supervisors", etc).   Some of his edits are undisguised vandalism, others are subtle POV adjustments, some possibly closer to a NPOV but many just clearly not attempts at NPOV.   Few of his edits add any information and he only targets politically contentious pages.   He is very prolific, digging through his edits would take hours.


 * Anyway, the intentions in his edits aren't the issue -- his treatment of other users is.  The constant berating of "liberal church ladies" is counter productive.   I'm sure most just brush it off but others are probably genuinely offended and it just slows editing down to a slog of argument.


 * In his defense, BigDaddy did move most of his work to the talk pages.  This RFC complains about overly long passages, but thankfully he has refrained from editing the actual articles without talking about the changes first.   Also, though he is the quickest to apply labels and spew endlessly about liberal cabals, I haven't seen any of the editors on BigDaddy's favorite watering holes working towards an NPOV article either.  I have also encountered far worse treatment from other users ("racist troll" among others)  --Archier 23:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But do you agree that he is violating No Personal Attacks, Assume Good Faith, and Civility? --kizzle 23:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * No.Gator1 23:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, none of those guidelines? Because to me, the posted examples seem like crystal clear examples of not being civil at the very least. I guess we just disagree. --kizzle 23:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, really none. RFCs should be reserved for really bad offensive folks, not this guy.Gator1 23:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification Noitall, an editor's conduct is just as important as the quality of his edits. This RfC is only disputing the former, I do agree that BigDaddy seems to have potential to positively contribute to Wikipedia.  He just needs to learn civility first. This RfC is not an attempt to punish BigDaddy but to try to convince him to change his manner of dialogue. So I agree with your estimation that he should be warned and then end this RfC, as long as he learns from these proceedings. --kizzle 23:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we are in agreement as to the desired result. The only thing we are not in agreement about, and I know that many have a different point of view, is that I think RfCs are more serious than this and should be used for more serious issues dealing with editing an article.  --Noitall 23:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * See, I disagree with that. I think that if someone, like Bigdaddy is making good edits and tries to maintain a NPOV on the articles (which is why Wikiepdia is here) but acts kind of like an idiot (to some people) in the talk pages (but keeps it to the talk pages) I think the edits are more important.  This is an open forum, we need to be prepared to get a bloody nose and angry once in a while without worrying that someone is going to call an rfc to make you play nice.  I think this whole thing it outrageous, to be honest.  I've seen MUCH worse than this with no such action.Gator1 23:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is the behavior of the author on whom this RfC focuses that is at issue, not whether the RfC was called to make someone 'play nice'. Assuming good faith is a wikipedia tenet, not something to be arbitrarily ignored. If you look at the exchanges that prompted this RfC, you will find there is a preponderance of abuse coming from one, not both, sides. Argument is violent, and 'bloody noses' are fine, but one should only be 'bleeding' when one's ARGUMENT is faulty, not from cheap shots, personal attacks and name calling. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the RFC is very clear about what the goals are, and how it is not a serious impeachment or a precursor to more serious action. From the very first paragraph, "I have filed this RFC to get a full spectrum of perspectives about how BD777, and minority editors in general, can best prosecute their case without prosecuting their opposition." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As BigDaddy said himself, "there are LOTS of rules and guidelines." There are more rules and guidelines on Wikipedia than simply NPOV.  True, the edits are important.  But there's a reason why the rules section doesn't simply say "keep it neutral." --kizzle 23:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen some of BigDaddy's edits; I don't think its any big deal. Let him be, I say. --Bedford 00:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is an RFC is a VERY big deal and should not be instituted lightly, but should be reserved for much more serious conduct, usually involving edits to the artciles themselves. I simply don't buy that this is simply to discuss Bigdaddy, we cna do that somewhere else (his talk page for example) this is something a lot more serious and we all know it. Bigdaddy is abrasive as all heck, but if we all want this to be a truly open forum where (on the talk pages) we can really hammer stuff out, we have to accept that there will be people who will piss other people off and you just need to deal with it. We can't be calling an RFC everytime a hothead gets under our skin and drives us crazy. With all due respect, I think that RFC was wrongly instituted and needs to end sooner rather than later. Let the man speak and you can speak back without doing this. I've made my peace here and don't plan on writing anymore, just do the right thing. Please end this now...please.Gator1 01:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you fundamentally misunderstand. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhh, RfC isn't really that big of a step. This isn't mediation or arbitration or anything, it's the first step in the dispute resolution process.  I, along with several others, have pleaded many many times for BigDaddy to curb his hostilities with no effect.  This is the proper next step. --kizzle 02:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. An RfC is much more serious than this and uses a large effort of the Wiki community. It is the first step towards arbitration.  "Pleading" on a talk page when there is no real editorial dispute is about the most minor grievance someone has here on Wiki.  One of the people involved here has done far far worse with quite a bit of disruption on many pages, and even requested an RfC filed against him numerous times, but no one has, because I think RfCs should be for more serious behavior and because the person showed signs of refraining from disruption.  To me, this was good enough.  I think that a simple promise from BigDaddy777 to watch his language, make his comments directly applicable to an edit, and tone down the rhetoric a notch would be plenty good.  You don't need to do an RfC for that.  --Noitall 04:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I beg you again, that if you think there are behaviors that you would like me to change about myself that I have refused to change on your direct request (and there are - for instance, I will not allow you to post images with false copyright tags, and I will not allow you to remove names from a project membership list, among other things), please file an RFC regarding my conduct, and action that I do not see as severe in the least. Please do not take our dispute to unrelated pages. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If that was a cheap shot against me, please go re-read our discussions and see where I berate you for being a "right-wing nutjob"... you might disagree with me on something, but mere disagreement doesn't warrant an RfC. In addition, if I did make any ad hominem attacks in the course of our conversations, I definetely apologize.  This is the difference between me and BigDaddy. He refuses to step down or acknowledge his behavior. --kizzle 10:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abuse is abuse. His words speak a lot louder about his behavior than yours. He has consistently called people names and attacked individuals, rather than collaborating on ideas. A 'promise' is not enough to ensure the abusive behavior will stop - hence, an RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A promise from BD777, along with a change in behavior discussed herein would serve to close this issue for me. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not mention names as to the example I used for far more disruptive behavior because I figured they would want to remain silent about it. But it is not Kizzle, who I may disagree with quite often, but I have never found disruptive (I don't think a passionate discussion on a talk page is grounds for anything).  Since he once again used his name and called for an RfC, and since he was again disruptive just this morning, trolling my edits and going on entirely new pages to make bad faith edits on the actual page itself, yes it is Hipocrite that I am speaking about. --Noitall 01:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

This process is not a joke, Gator1
Please do not make this process less likley to reach a consentual conclusion. Your comment on BD777s talk page was unhelpful, at best. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh... for those who think this RfC was hastily put together, let me reprint the attempts to communicate to BigDaddy that he needs to curb his hostilities (each one was rebuked):


 * I'd also like to clear up another misunderstanding that I think you have. There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia who "greenlight" content, and Wikipedia does not "give approval" for certain passages. We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be. Not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." Instead, merely bring it up here with a concise, logical argument as to why it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Look at Paul Klenk, Mongo, Noitall (most of the time), they are conservative editors who try to discuss changes with those they disagree with rather than attack them. Don't inflame the situation here by turning it into a left/right war or claiming that conservative viewpoints are suppressed. There are several conservative editors here who are successful at getting their content inserted into articles because they politely discuss their changes through logical arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. -
 * ...My point is not debatable. You must conduct yourself according to Wikipedia policy (and it is a very reasonable policy) of discussing, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Like I said before, not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." If someone is harassing you, report them. Don't turn it into a justification to behave in an equal manner. -
 * "That's not how it works. There are rules and guidelines here. You don't get to deride other people and their work and force the rest of us to wade through your posts consisting of 15% reason and 85% polemics... Assume good faith, No Personal Attacks, and until you adhere to these guidelines, you are the issue. I sound like a broken record at this point: Don't use other people's bad behavior to excuse yours. It's time you learned to be civil and discuss your arguments rather than encourage hostilities around here. You still have not defended your actions but have merely responded that I am picking on you. Nobody should make these attacks, be it liberal or conservative (and you are' making these attacks, I have previously documented it), but every word that comes out of your mouth seems to be deriding someone or assumg bad faith on the rest of us. Stop now. -
 * "Seriously, unless you tone down the hostility in editing on Wikipedia, you are going to be subject to dispute resolution. I, along with several others, have pleaded for you to calm down and discuss changes without personally attacking or assuming bad faith on the part of your co-editors. Please for the love of all that is good and holy ASSUME GOOD FAITH and STOP PERSONALLY ATTACKING PEOPLE!! -

The point is not his prior behavior, but his refusal to admit that there's anything wrong with his style of discourse. You are right that RfC's shouldn't be hastily or unnecessarily brought against someone. That is the very reason why RfC's require evidence that two separate people tried to resolve the dispute on their own. Hence the RfC. --kizzle 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

My view
While I do not want this on the main RfC page, I thought I would give my view here. I haven't researched BD777 enough to present a real outsider's view, but I have come across him several times. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I actually agree with Kizzle, RyanFreisling, et al... mostly. There is a small group of editors trying to push POV, and BigDaddy777 may be the worst I've seen in a while. On the other hand, half of the "hostile" comments are not necessarily hostile, or a personal attack. People seem to be reading too much into things. BigDaddy has had some issues in the past, and I would be suprised to see if someone tried to claim he has not (don't worry I've seen Gator's comments above). However, what do you hope to gain from this RfC? Most of the time, people like BigDaddy will not change. So if this is just a stepping stone to get to Arbitration, and then, banning, I feel this is possibly out of line. Like I said, I have not had the opportunity to go back through BD777's entire contrib history, and if you want to correct me that's fine. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here. If I delve into this deeper, I may add more to my short summary. Oh, and one more thing... throughout this RfC process, everyone needs to remember that the same rules apply (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc.). If someone has a different view, don't commit the same errors that BigDaddy is accused of here. Thanks for your time. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not advocating ArbCom in this case, but I'm wondering why you think it would be out of line, especially if BD will not change his behavior? Gamaliel 18:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are right. Perhaps I said it wrong, or am just unable to express my opinion in words. It would not be out of line if that's the case. What I meant was that if this RfC is just being used for the purpose of going to Arbitration, in an effort to get this editor banned, this RfC may be out-of-line. If this RfC is being used a some sort of trumped-up personal agenda or vendetta, it may be out-of-line. I see the evidence presented, and was just wondering what Kizzle, et al. hope to achieve from this RfC. I understand that before ArbCom can be undertaken, there needs to be other efforts to resolve problems, but if this is just being used for that purpose (with no intent or hope for change here), I don't really like it. I am in no way trying to defend BD, he has been iffy at best, but like I said, I don't really agree with some of the evidence presented. Perhaps I may be asking too much of the ArbCom, but if someone like BD comes along (with seemingly no ability or intent to change), maybe Arbitration could be a first step. Or maybe Mediation, or something. Like I said, I may just be unable to express myself typed out in words. Sorry. If I figue out what I'm trying to say, I'll get back to you. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate a key point that Hipocrite and I have stressed: This is not meant to be a stepping stone to Arbitration.  If BigDaddy recognizes that he needs to adopt civility and does so, then all this disappears.  I don't think that's too much to ask, but so far its been fighting tooth and nail just to get him to admit there's a problem. --kizzle 18:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kizzle, I am heartfully sorry. I must have missed that point in my read though of the RfC. I withdraw my statement and endorse this RfC. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with Voldemort. I don't think he's an angel, I just think this is unwarranted at worst and just a real waste of time at best. He's never going to bend and say what you want him to say, and you can't get him banned or punished for what he's done (or else Hipo and Kizzle would be threatening that) so let's just end this and move on to editing, which is why we all are here in the first place. I really hope that this is the last I'll be saying on this subject, so I can get back to editing.Gator1 18:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are the only editor of about 10 involved on this page that thinks BigDaddy's conduct is ok. Even Noitall echoes my sentiments, apologize and move on. Violating Wikipedia official rules consistently and without remorse is indeed grounds for further movement up the dispute resolution ladder. We are not seeking this because our goal is not to punish BigDaddy to the full extent possible but rather catch his behavior early so that his civility can rise to the quality of his edits. --kizzle 18:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, I never said his conudct is "OK" I really hate when people put words in my mouth. I just said I don't think he's violating policy or violating it enough to warrant this very serious action (and it IS serious, if he doesn't respond what will you do if not try to take it ot th enext level???) And yes, the policies are technically  violating all the time without an RFC being filed (was it you or Hipo that just referred to BD as  a"jerk?"). I just have a different reading of the poicies than you do. A reading that allows for more back and forth and "bloody noses" in the talk rooms and I don't like a strict interpretation of them becuase they lead to people using the system to try to control other people and initimidate them. I'm not saying that's happening here, but I just don't like where this is heading and I'm NOT the only one who feels that ways, so don't try to marginalize me.

I think this RFC has worked to air opinions about BD somewhere other than a talk page, so it should end, because he's NEVER going to (and never intended to) respond, we all know that. So unless you plan to take this to the next level and try, in vain, to get him punished, than I implore ou to end this now and get back to the good stuff....editing.Gator1 18:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to elevate anything unless BD777's conduct deteriorates. The stasis quo is worth of an RFC, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is not about making other contributors bleed. That you think it is shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is Not. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this goes on to the next level is BigDaddy's choice. Thus, he may view this RfC with whatever level of seriousness he may like.  Policies are violated very frequently (see where I call BigDaddy a troll at the top), however making them with such frequency and without remorse is inexcusable, and can be considered far from a "strict" interpretation of Wikipedia official policy. BigDaddy has consistently demonstrated his preference for hostilities in discussing with other editors. If he continues to do so and ignore repeated attempts by his co-editors to get him to follow Wikipedia official policies, than sadly this must continue. ---kizzle 19:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think Hipo and Kizzle need to get on the same page here because I'm reading different things. Hipo is promising that this will go nowhere but Kizzle is saying it will if BD doesn't do and say what you want him to (which he won't). Let's get this cleared up shall we?

To Hipo: You've accused me, now. twice of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. I take some, limited, offense to that. I think I understand Wiipedia at least as well as you and I don't appreciate the down talk, to be quite honest. The fact is that the talk pages on Wikipedia or RIDDLED with some pretty outrageous stuff and I for one don't get my panties in a bunch about it. You can't one one hand, try an micro-legislate behavior and still have a free an open forum on our talk pages. Let this fish go, Hipo, there are bigger fish to fry, much more deserving of an RFC. I'm beginning to see a vendetaa here (you and Kizzle and BD have gone back and forth more than anyone) and it's starting to turn ugly. Either end this here or just tell us what you plan to do when BD doesn't reply and be honest with us, because HE'S NOT GOING TO REPLY.Gator1 19:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't need to get on the same page here, as we are two totally different people. I don't intend to push this to ArbCom unless BD777 deteriorates. I'm going to accuse you of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia again, and I apologize if you take offence - people are not supposed to be personally attacked, anywhere, ever. Anyone who personally attacks is violating policy, needs to acknoledge this, and stop. If I've done it, please point it out to me on my talk page, or as a responce to my personal attack, and I will acknoledge it, and stop. WP Is NOT a free and open forum. It's in WP:NOT. There is no vendetta here - WP:AGF. Look at the history of me trying to resolve the dispute - look at the history of follow-up edits I've done to BD777's POV pushes. There's no vendetta here. BD777 can choose not to respond if he feels that way - let me say for the record that if NGB is right, and BD777 is going to stop the personal attacks, that a response "I will stop my personal attacks. ~ " would suffice. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up, I'm on the same page as Hipocrite. I didn't mean to come across as hoping to continue this past RfC, if BigDaddy's conduct is no longer a problem than I don't see any reason to continue this past RfC.  That's what an RfC is for, it's not a stepping stone towards Arbcom, it's a chance to get an outside perspective on the matter.  And it seems almost universal that people find a problem with BigDaddy's conduct, of which civility and avoiding personal attacks are Wikipedia official policy.  So as long as he recognizes that and changes his behavior to be in accordance with these official policies, I'll be happy. --kizzle 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

And if he doesn't do what you ask and continues his behavior, please tell us what you plan on doing then? Do you really think you can get some sort of punitive sanctions here? I don't think you can, but I may be wrong. Let us all in on what he plan is if (when) BD doesn't do what you want. For the record....I don't think personal attacks are acceptable, but I just don't think an RFC (which IS a steeping stone to arbitration/mediation and you know it) is warranted for the KINDS of personal attacks that BD has committed, we just need to have a thicker skin and move on. Stop the crying and start the editing, is what I say. I'm done on this, I've got better things to do here and have wasted enough of my time.Gator1 19:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop the crying...
 * Nice. --kizzle 19:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

lol, you're not going to answer the question are you?!Gator1 19:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Gator, I was the one who was first advocating this position, but Kizzle and Hipocrite have both said that there is no intent to take this any further than it has to go. Do as I did when they say this, assume good faith. If they say they have no intent of taking this to ArbCom or Mediation if they don't have to, believe them. And if BD does not stop his problems, I will be right there with them filing a petition before ArbCom. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To the substantive point, If the vitriol or frequency of the personal attacks increases, or remains at the current level for an extended period of time, I would ask User:Ed Poor to take an active role in mentoring this user, as I have found him to be incredibly good at such interactions. If he cannot find the time and there is no reasonable replacement, or believes he has failed in such interactions, I would ask the users who were more heistant of this RFC (Voldemort, NGB) if they considered Arbitration an acceptable action at that point. If they did, I would file such a request. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification HIPO and good luck with that.Gator1 19:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you weren't being sarcastic, then thanks for the wishes. --kizzle 19:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Me? Never.Gator1 19:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

NGB's view
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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Most recent opposer:
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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

re: motion to suspend
It is clear now that Hipo (and Kizzle to alesser extent) has a clear personal grudge against BD and will not stop this farce until BD says and does EXACTLY what he wants (which will never happen) no matter how much improvement he makes. I for one am sick and tired of this ridiculus display and am taking this page off my watchlist right away. It's not going anywhere (irrelevant) and is just being used for people to pile on the criticims and attack anotehr user. I really hope that everyone now sees this RFC for what is truly is: a personal vendetta by Hipo against another user. Deny it all you want, but it's obvious now. (here come the denials....)Gator1 01:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, you took my motion to give BigDaddy the benefit of the doubt where I recognized he has "progressed considerably", complimented him in his potential for greatness here, and then you concluded that I have a "clear personal grudge against BD" to a "lesser extent"? What is clear to me is your complete misunderstanding of almost every aspect behind this RfC and its purpose, a complete misunderstanding of the dispute resolution process in general, and your view that despite a plethora of documented personal attacks which inarguably violated several Wikipedia policies, you give BigDaddy a free pass.  Thank god you took this page off your wishlist. --kizzle 01:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gator1: Is it really too much to ask that BD make some acknowledgement of this RFC? It's hardly a farce: 13 independent editors, beyond those certifying, agreed that BD was acting poorly.  Apparently, some of it is because BD is still learning what wikipedia is about.  Fair enough, then all BD has to do is agree to follow policy, state so here, and then actually do it.  End of story.  Explicitly responding to the complaint here is respecting the process.  Calling that request a 'vendetta' seems somewhat exagerrated to me.  Derex 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "somewhat" exaggerated is definetely an understatement. --kizzle 02:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If BD777 agrees to follow Wikipedia policy, and then does so, that would be great. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * BigDaddy777's rudeness and stentorian rantings notwithstanding, recent goings-on have called into question some of the charges against him, namely, charges of "vandalism." It has now been established that the decidely incorrect throwing around of this term "vandalism" has been a ploy to bully him away from his good faith efforts to trim articles of a glut of negative material, and an excuse by others to make reversions of edits they did not like.  His deleting of one or two sentences at a time, characterized as "bulk removal," were clearly within his right.  They do not in any way meet the definition of vandalism.  All claims in this RFC that he is a "vandal" therefore need careful reevaluation, and possibly retraction.  All fights and disputes resulting from those charges of "vandalism" therefore must also be brought into question.


 * THERE ARE NO CLAIMS OF VANDALISM IN THIS RFC. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I, too, am hoping BD will give comments on this page.   paul klenk 02:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I never called him a vandal. I called some of his edits vandalism. He makes other, valid points, sprinkled within the scores of personal attacks, threats and bullying - so I wouldn't label him a vandal. And I won't feed any more revisionist trolling - the incident is closed, and no block issued. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not mention any names. But, who else commits vandalism but vandals?.  More directly, what happened directly bears on BigDaddy's behavior, the ensuing fights, and some of the motives behind this RFC.   paul klenk 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On your last point, we are agreed. As to the former - if you separate the behavior from the individual, it is easier to refrain from personal attacks...-- RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that your latest posting of BigDaddy quotes under 'improved behavior' really doesn't contain much representing 'improved behavior' at all, and seems much more like an attempt to 'balance' the information I just added... I don't see how it serves the factual intent of this RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Whatever they accuse you of, accuse them back - whatever they do, do it back - without regard for fact"... a very Rovian strategy. And very bad faith. I expect that now, true to form, you will do the same to the items in the 'disputed' section, merely for retributive reasons.-- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that opinion, Ryan. I'll let my introductory comments speak for themselves, and allow others to review the quotes I have added in light of my remarks.  Remember, this is evidence of "improved" behavior, not "perfect" behavior.  I think they show improvement.  I'm sorry if they seem to balance your efforts -- that was not my intention.  It's just that I don't see anyone elseo trying to provide any quotes that show evidence of improvement at all (although many people have mentioned that BigDaddy777 is, in fact, improving.


 * "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 04:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to this reader, they don't. They show a continued flippancy and willingness to accuse and attack. The amount of effort this user has drained from this community as he gradually improves from outright attacks to couched attacks is astonishing. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ryan, I don't understand who the following remark of yours is addressed to, or what it means. Could you please shed some light on it?:  And very bad faith. I expect that now, true to form, you will do the same to the items in the 'disputed' section, merely for retributive reasons.  paul klenk 04:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel I was quite clear, and I will refrain from feeding the troll. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I truly don't understand it, and I don't know what "feeding the troll" means, either -- I am now further confused, not less confused, by your remark. Would you please take a moment to explain?  Many thanks.    paul klenk 04:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I think it best to leave it there, and avoid what has become a relentless 'tit-for-tat'. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)