Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BigDaddy777

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 | contributions from IP 68.42.141.76 | contributions from IP 68.40.168.173)

Please note that substantial discussions that were taking place on the main page have been moved to talk per "Discussion", below

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 addition to an obvious 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
 * Assume Good Faith
 * 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!! -

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. In recent light, this may have gone too far. Support withdrawn. -- Lord Vold  e  mort  (Dark Mark)  17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 14) I agree. The thing is. This isn't just "something on a talk page". Have you seen his user page? We're supposed to be unbiased here. Basically saying on  your user page that you are going to push conservatism isn't unbiased. And I disagree with those saying we dislike what he is saying. No. it's the WAY he says it. It's the fact that he is biased...he is pushing a agenda. It has nothing to do with his views. If he was pushing liberalism, I'd be saying the exact same thing. This is not a place for a agenda. I think he needs to show impartiality before I'll say that he's gotten better. So far, I see none of it. I see a user pushing an agenda. I see an abusive user who is doesn't want to cooperate. Instead, he's a bully who wants to push people around and get his way. He needs to curb that before I'll say he's improved. I don't see it yet. And I agree with those saying he doesn't assume good faith. Instead, he assumes that we're pushing some sort of liberal agenda on here. And he does this without any real evidence. --Woohookitty 17:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) I've had some small experience with him on the Pat Robertson talk page, where he (I'm paraphrasing here) implied in reply to a scripture passage in which I quoted Jesus stating a divine imperative for unqualified kindness to everyone that it was scripturally valid for him to behave badly towards infidels because he was born-again and his judgement was thereby of a higher standard than anyone else's . Charming. --Fire Star 22:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) If I'd known this was here I'd have responded earlier. BigD fundamentally does not understand what collaborative work is. Marskell 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) BigDaddy's behavior is completely unacceptable. He's even broken many other rules that this RfC does not cover such as vandalism and NPOV. Mr. Tibbs 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) This user is totally out of line and shows neither respect nor courtesy for his fellow editors. He says that he will not "allow" articles to remain in a form not to his liking.  His actions border on vandalism in deleting sourced material that does not adhere to his POV.  Guettarda 00:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) User appears to have a broken caps lock key. --Viriditas | Talk 05:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) BigDaddy777 is treating Wikipedia as his personal playground and not paying attention to common rules. See his talk page for evidence. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:09, 5 October 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) 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.  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.  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)
 * 6) Derktar 03:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC).
 * 7) Hiddekel 08:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC).
 * 8) --Keetoowah 12:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC).  These arbitration hearings over arguments is the main thing that makes Wikipedia look silly to outsiders.  There are a few users that enjoy taking people into Arbitration way too much.  For example, Ellemosynary, is a constantly taking people into Arbitration for the smallest things.  Things that he does himself.  Drop the Arbitration and go about editing articles.  For Goodness sake.  --- --Keetoowah 12:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Says Keetowah, himself found guilty of unacceptable behavior via arbitration. Keetowah, get with the program:  BD777 has been banned for life, so your "drop the arbitration" nonsense is as useless as last week's fishwrap.  By the way, please provide information that I've ever "taken" anyone into Arbitration.  I haven't.  You're either deluded, or a liar.  (Or both.) Eleemosynary 03:19, 3 November 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)

Outside View of Jmabel
Definitely an editor who entered with guns blazing and has calmed down a bit since then. I'm still not sure that he understands that talk pages are primarily for working on the article, not for registering one's indignation with the other people involved, but he seems to be headed that way. I certainly would not want to see punitive action at this time, but he's certainly not on my mental list of editors I tend to trust to do the right thing.

I have suggested to him (and he seemed reasonably open to the suggestion) that it is generally a lot easier to get material added to an article than to get well-cited material removed. I happen to agree with him that the Pat Robertson article goes on at too-great length about gaffes and scandals, but in my experience that it is simply the nature of Wikipedia. I have suggested to him that he would accomplish a lot more trying to get information into the article about Robertson's theology, charity work, etc. than trying to remove the gaffes. I'd love to see a higher-level discussion about how Wikipedia on a broader level can reduce the tendency for biographies of controversial figures to turn into scandal-sheets, but neither this RfC nor that one article seems the place to do that. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside View of CBDunkerson
I realize that this has moved on to Arbitration, but after initially refraining from comment in hopes of seeing improvement I am now moved to put in a few words. Briefly, Bigdaddy's bad behaviour seems deliberate. He goes out of his way to provoke hostility... not merely by belligerence in confrontation, but also through condescension and gloating even when he gets his way. He makes edits that are clearly false (i.e. 'Eric Alterman does not work for MSNBC') and refuses to accept even incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Obviously, he also presents a consistent POV bias in his edits - but alone that would not be a significant issue. Rather it is his insistence on false edits and deliberate disruption which makes this user such a problem. --CBDunkerson 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul Klenk's evidence of BigDaddy777's improved behavior
Thank you, Hipocrite, for creating this new section for my evidence. It was a shock to find it removed, and a relief to find it back here.

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)

Additional comments which demonstrate the qualities I have described above:
 * Since you say you agree with me here, I'm gonna defer and allow YOU to be the first to offer suggestions as to how it can be more balanced.
 * I'd like to see us add a religion section to the Ann Arbor article. The city was the birthplace of The Word of God community in the late 70's/early 80's which is WIDELY considered to be the progenitors of the charismatic Catholic movement worldwide.
 * Since this article almost reads like campaign literature, to add balance I'm inclined to include what Randall Terry feels about Wasserman Schultz's involvement in the Schivo case.
 * quotes added by paul klenk 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes. Paul, as much as I respect you personally, I find it increasingly odd that you would be here fervently defending BigDaddy777 and him having uttered nary a word.  His absence here is ringing. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 06:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, Katefan0. See my comments in the Discussion section.   He hasn't been editing today -- probably a good thing...!   Let's let him cool off, and not hold it against him.  I hope it's okay for me to provide information that has been requested (evidence of improvement -- not perfection, improvement), and placing some of the many accusations in context.  There is no defense for his behavior, but it did not happen in a vaccuum.  I think a bit of balance is in order.  Considering the number of people ready to string him up, we shouldn't begrudge him one person who will stand up for him.   paul klenk 06:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Paul, I know you mean well but to my ears these are platitudes. The reason he hasn't yet answered is not because he's "cooling off" -- he's had the entire run of this RfC to respond, and in fact I think I remember him specifically saying somewhere that he had no intention of responding.  Of course it's okay for you to participate here, I never suggested it wasn't -- what I said was that it was odd for you to be defending him with this level of involvement when he himself is completely absent.  One more thing -- an RFC is not "piling on."  The way RFCs on Wikipedia work are that people are encouraged to reply.  More people means more chance for a good consensus.  Peoples' opinions in a forum where they are encouraged to give them is not "piling on."  There is no policy for "balance" on an RFC -- peoples' opinions are what they are and they're encouraged to give them candidly.  Obviously nobody should be leveling personal attacks -- criticism should be constructive and made in good faith.   But if someone judges the conduct of an editor who is the subject of an RFC to be improper, then they judge it improper -- the truth of the community's opinion is not "piling on."  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 07:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kate. Your explanation really helps -- as always.   paul klenk 07:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Mystery solved. Here:  BigDaddy777 said, "Gone for the weekend. Have fun everybody. I'll be back soon..." He made two no, make that four -- more edits within ten no, make that 30 minutes of that statement, and hasn't edited since. (comments corrected by paul klenk)

So he didn't just disappear, and he's not ignoring us -- he gave notice not to expect him. Hope none of you are too disappointed to learn this. paul klenk 08:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever his notice said, an anon signing as 'Big Daddy (on the road)' has been editing the Talk:Karl Rove article numerous times today 13:56, 18 September 2005, 13:25, 18 September 2005,13:00, 18 September 2005, 15:07, 18 September 2005, 15:31, 18 September 2005 but has not yet chosen to post on the RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ryan, three times in your edit summaries to this page, you have falsely accused BigDaddy of "attacks." People read those summaries (I know you do).  "More attacks..."  "Another attack..."  "Another attack..."  You clearly have no idea what an attack is, just as you have no idea what vandalism is, as you have continuously and falsely accused BigDaddy of vandalism, and never retracted it.   Those two terms have specific meanings here at WP, and your use of them do not meet the definitions.  You know better.  Your false accusations, and your attitude towards BigDaddy, have clearly played a part in the many heated disputes on the Rove talk page which have led to this RfC.  You may not like his strong sentiments, or he bold assertions, or his choice of words, but none of what he said is an attack.  Stop mischaracterizing it as such immediately. You, Ryan, are part of the problem, and I would like you to 1] recognize it, 2] own it, 3] and change your behavior.    paul klenk 20:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Clarification: In almost all the examples given in the initial filing of the RfC, Ryan was not involved in the discussions, thus I think its a stretch to say of discussions after the RfC was filed that Ryan had any effect on "causing" BigDaddy to behave in such a manner. --kizzle 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points, kizzle, and thanks for pointing them out. First, the word "cause" is not mine; no one causes another's behavior.  BD has to take ownership of his.  Ryan is, however, the 2nd endorsee of the RfC, and she has been piling on every possible quote she can find of BigDaddy777's to "prove" evidence of bad behavior after the dispute was filed.  She loves to throw around the word "attack" when it does not apply -- she clearly either does not know what the term means, or is deliberatey misapplying it.  She learned the meaning of the term vandalism the hard way; I hope she now stops using the word attack in every other edit.  I watch her behavior closely:  She is very fast to accuse, then play the victim.  If she wasn't in the beginning, she is now part of this RfC, and she contributed to many of the incidents involving BD after this RfC was filed.   paul klenk 22:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Start an RFC about Ryan then. The personal attacks must stop, and they must stop now. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 02:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand by my edit comments in all of those cases. In response to a good faith listing of content I intended for the Karl Rove article, BD's attacks continued. His edits have not been vandalism, however. And I even apologized to BigDaddy (a path for resolving conflict) if he felt my post was an attack on him - something BD has not yet done.
 * If the previous few days' activities are any indication, I expect you'll next open an RfC against in retribution for this, as you opened a 3RR report in retribution for my report of BigDaddy - in which case, I'll continue to look forward to the honest feedback of the community, and I'll continue to follow its' policies. For now, however, I'm going to refrain from responding further to either of you, if you continue to attack and falsely accuse. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Show us the attacks he has made on that page, please. Just show me.  And how dare you call my motives into question, and then call them "attacks"?  I do not make retaliatory attacks.  It was not s 3RR, it was a clear 5RR in less than 19 hours, justified by you, of course, based on your false allegations of vandalism.  Yes, you will point out that you "were not blocked," but that was only because the page had to be protected (making a block unnecessary), due to the edit war which you fueled, and for which you were chastised by at least one admin, .  You really have some nerve calling my motives into question.    Stop calling every statement you don't like an attack.  By the way, you are getting feedback from a member of the community -- me.  paul klenk 21:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war. The rest of your post is patent misrepresentation of the incident. It was not 'clear', it was filed after the article had already been protected (making it irrelevant), and I was not 'chastised'. Moreover, I am not calling your motives into question - I am calling your actions into question. In any case, this RfC is about BD777... shall we focus on his behavior or try to shift the focus onto others? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I will give BigDaddy until the end of Tuesday to reply to this RfC, afterwards I will withdraw my motion to suspend. --kizzle 20:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to kizzle, Hipocrite and others:
 * I have added a link at the top of this page to BigDaddy777's contributions from his anonymous IP, which he has mostly used on the 18th. He has usually signed these edits "Big Daddy on the road" -- certainly he has not tried to hide this use.  I hope this will help you more easily identify all his edits.   paul klenk 08:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Motion to suspend rescinded
Since BigDaddy remains too bullheaded to even acknowledge the presence of this RfC, I withdraw my offer to suspend. I have given him ample time to respect Wikipedia procedure, and I believe he has made at least about 50 edits since I kindly requested that he comment here, and even more after I set a deadline. The time for playing games with users who have no respect for Wikipedia procedures, or more importantly, civility, is over. Those in favor of taking to RfA, sign below. --kizzle 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) --kizzle 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Dick Clark 16:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Refusal to take part in this process demonstrates no desire to improve behaviour. --Sanguinus 17:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --NightMonkey 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) No perceptible improvement in BD777's civility, his lack of participation in this RfC is ignoble, and doesn't bode well for improvement.
 * 5) --Fire Star 13:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) -- RyanFreisling @ 20:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Whatever it takes, his behavior cannot be left unchecked, only to set an atrocious example for newer users.
 * 7) Eleemosynary 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Absolutely concur.
 * 8) --Badagnani 05:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) --Woohookitty -- 05:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC). If anything, he's gotten worse IMO.
 * 10) -- Mr. Tibbs 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC) -- Agreed, BigDaddy's behavior has gotten worse. What's new about his behavior is now he's trying to game the system.
 * 11) -- Calicocat 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC) This user is persistently rude and a troublemaker. He's inappropriate and ad hominem far too frequently, he shows little respect for his fellow editors. His failure to respond to this RfC shows the need for brining the issue forward and I think aribitration might be best.
 * 12) -- Plasmatics 17:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) How anyone can defend this behavior is beyond me.
 * 13) -- Guettarda 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC). He has moved beyond rudeness into vandalism.
 * 14) -- Archier 02:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) No.  Although he has refused to respond to the RFC he's not in egregious violation of any of these policies.   Change wiki policies if you want to prevent this behavior, as they are currently written he is within bounds.

RfC Suspended
It appears that User:BigDaddy777 still will refuse to recognize this RfC. While there is ample justification for taking this to Arbcom, I do believe a better solution exists. As it stands now, BigDaddy refuses to listen to us discuss his behavior yet requires us to listen to his tirades of turning Wikipedia into FreeRepublic. Why do we have to show him respect by taking the time to respond to his edits when he won't even bother to respond to valid issues about his behavior that his co-editors bring up? Therefore, I propose that until BigDaddy recognizes this RfC, people should avoid any dialog with him and simply blind revert any edits he makes to controversial article pages (not talk pages). If BigDaddy continues to personally attack, then this will move on to RfA. I believe that we as editors have a right to be treated properly, and if someone refuses to listen to us, than we are not required to listen to them. --kizzle 02:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Tibbs just filed an Arb request, so until BigDaddy comments on either his RfC or RfA, I advise people to listen to my proposal. --kizzle 03:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! Eleemosynary 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and harassment, again? Until official action is taken, I see no excuse here to not assume good faith in his edits. Least of all your subjective opinion of supposed bias in his edits. Hiddekel 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore, BigDaddy graced us all with his presence on the RfA.--kizzle 09:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested
Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The arbitration request has been accepted and the case has been opened. Mr. Tibbs 05:27, 4 October 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.