Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop

IP?
I would love to see the results of that Ip check. AM I looking in the wrong spot. People have repeatedly directed me here and have told me that this PROVES that BD is a sockpuppet. I don't see that here. It just suspected and that there was an IP check. Just wnat to know what happened. Thanks.Gator1 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They are on this page, under "Sockpuppets of BigDaddy777". I'll cut and paste for clarity:  Suspected sockpuppets include User:Barneygumble User:LEONARD WATSON User:Paganviking User:64.154.26.251 User:67.124.200.240 and User:216.119.139.77 &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kate. I saw that, but those are SUSPECTED puppets. I'm looking for the evidence that the IP check confirmed that they were IN FACT sockpuppets. Those aren't the same things? Do you know where I can find this? Or are you saying that the IP check did IN FACT confirm that those suspected puppets were real? Why the use of the word "suspected" then. This is all very unclear. Thanks fro your help.Gator1 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, sorry I couldn't be of more help. My own experience with sockpuppet checks is very limited (none, really), so I don't know how definitive these are considered. My feeling from being around here for a while is though they're labeled suspected, they're generally accepted as pretty much accurate, particularly if you use contributions histories to substantiate. Sorta like a DNA test. Maybe Fred can speak to this when he sees it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they're suspected because they're all IPs that have been used to login to his account. I highly doubt that barneygumble is BigDaddy, as they edit vastly different articles, so maybe its a friend who turned him on to wikipedia or confusion through dynamic ips. --kizzle 17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a check of which accounts used the ip. The possibility exists that some other person entirely also used the ip. Fred Bauder 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Soooo is BD a sockpuppeteer or not. Which of thos suspected IPs and users were lnked with him? That's all I need to be satisfied here.


 * All Fred can make a determination on at this point is the IP/account relationships, whether or not someone actually is a sockpuppet is a judgment call which takes a while. From my own estimation, I think barneygumble just shared a computer once or is confused through dynamic ips, however, I'd be willing to bet that 64 and 67 are sockpuppets (which make several comments on the Ann Coulter page quite humorous). --kizzle 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What is bugging me here is that to date, neither Fred nor David Gerard have spelled out, in complete sentences, something like "At least one IP address has been used at times by both BigDaddy and Barney Gumble." No matter what I say, I can't seem to get anyone to make such a clarification.  I don't think anyone understands what kind of clarification I'm looking for.  I would like to propose that in the future the results of sockpuppet checks be reported in a standard format that involves complete sentences to avoid this kind of confusion. Jdavidb (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is why refusing to log in, while 'on the road', or whereever, is harmful for establishing mutual accountability among editors. And it's that accountability which is sorely lacking in this RfA subject's case. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah THAT'S what's lacking, he needs even MORE people yelling at him...that's what's missing....ok. LOLGator1 18:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, he needs to shape up or ship out. That's why we're in RfA. Why are you here? -- RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So he's gonna get shipped out now huh? Once again, I though the RFC wasn't to punish. I guess things changed....or maybe there were always the same after all. "Why are you here?" You're trying to pick a fight with me and I'm not going to rise to the bait. See some of the policies you've been shoving down BD's throat. You're one of the most aggressive users I've seen here and I want nothing to do with it, thank you very much. Play some more football to get that aggression out. It helped me (also helped me to destroy my knees...but it was worth it). Don't get so upset either. We all know you're gonna win this one.Gator1 00:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People who make statements like "it's that it's not possible to work 'within consensus'" and imply that they are not going to work within it do inneed to shape up or ship out. I much prefer the shape up option. Jdavidb (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * RFC's aren't meant to punish anyone. They're also not meant to be ignored. And if we truly had won, BigDaddy would have learned to contribute civily and bring balance to Wikipedia, rather than threaten his co-editors and write articles on the liberal cabal. --kizzle 01:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not picking a fight. The RfA is intended to address what is seen by some as utterly unacceptable conduct. The RfC was an attempt to get comments (which BD refused to provide). And bans (shipping out) are a frequent result of egregious cases like this. That's the point I was making. And most of all, if you claim you don't want any part of it, don't impugn my name as you did on BD's talk page here - especially when it touches on a topic that doesn't involve me:


 * "Tell that to Ryan. Where's HER RFC? Stop threatening people, it's beneath you. He can blank his ENTIRE talk page if he wants to, there's no rule about that."Gator1 12:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Leave me out of your rants and I'll leave you alone in kind. Behave respectfully and you will be met with equal respect. Avoid attacking others verbally and you will avoid getting into fights. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well If I'm being SO disrespectful, then I guess an RFC is the only option. Allright allright, you win Ryan. I can't fight with you after seeing your picture on your talk page. Arguing with good looking people just takes the winds out my sails. I give up. That's why I don't posty my picture. If people saw my ugly mug, they'd never leave me alone. I'll stop ranting. Uncle.Gator1 12:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * seriously, is this sockpuppet thing some kind of reenactment of the McCarthy hearings to make a political point? Because I'm pretty sure none of the accused were defending him. Coulter was that's true but we did agree on that point in the article. 67124etc 05:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that "Viper Daimao," 64.154.26.251, 216.119.139.73, 216.119.139.5, 67.124.200.240 and "67124etc" are sockpuppets of BD777
(New edit)Since my good faith in absolving myself of these allegations has been rewarded with illogical accusations and increasing hostility I have offered what I consider, irrefutable evidence that I am innocent of these charges. Please see the bottom of this page. --Viper Daimao 02:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll begin by addressing "Viper's" claim (made on this page), which sets up a false choice:


 * " So either we are all seperate people as we and others claim, or BD777 actually has 2,300 or so sockpuppets."


 * No, actually: there are some other options.


 * Here's one: BD777, looking for a way out of the "dynamic user" issue without being tagged for sockpuppeting, creates "Viper Daimao," a sockpuppet who feigns bewilderment and innocence, then claims to work for "internal IT" at Halliburton, yet seems to have no knowledge of how IP addresses work (as if blocking BD777's IP would somehow block the entirety of Halliburton from editing Wikipedia).


 * But BD777 needs to keep the "innocent Viper" ruse going, so he goes out of his way on his User Page to tell us "I dont quite have a hang on all the wiki tags and formats, and I havent really contributed much, just maybe a question here or there on a talk page." He also claims the handful of non-political edits in the fiery history of 64.154.26.251 belong to him.


 * My memory and JDavidB's contribution to this workshop confirm that there was no heated disputes that 64.154.26.251 got into before last weekend. Or maybe there was a little friction two weekends before that on the Monicasdude RFC. 216.119.139.22 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * May I direct you here? It rather contradicts your memory.  Do you think it's just a coincidence that this particular "heated dispute" was between 64.154.26.251 and Kizzle(who has borne the wrath of BD777 ad nauseam), and contains an endorsement of Gator1, to whom BD777 has lovingly entrusted reverting his Talk page until this Friday, when BD777 returns from his, ahem, "business trip."  Funny, it seems like he never left.  Your attempt to curry favor with JDavidB is reminiscent of BD777's 100+ "I just want to honor Jimmy Wales" ruses.  But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, too.  Good night. Eleemosynary 06:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's how I first got involved, seeing Kizzle's name attached to accusations of incivility. I should have remembered that, but I didn't.  I guess I didn't think of it because that was when I knew little about the content of the larger dispute happening (I still don't know much) and was instead making a prima facia objection to it.  By that I mean giving a reason to deny hearing the case in the first place because of purported obvious faults in its mode of presentation, which in this case was my recollection of the presenter's (Kizzle's) own record of incivility.  So I still don't see how you can characterize 64.154.26.251 as having a "fiery history".


 * I'll let the arbitrators decide it now. Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As for endorsing Gator1, what else was I going to do? Study the case and write my own outside view?  I already did my good deed in assisting the Monicasdude case, I really didn't have time for something like that again.


 * See above. Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And following your bizarre conspiracy theory, if I were Big Daddy, why would I want to "curry favor" with someone whom I had just banished from my talk page? Big Daddy obviously feels he can pick and choose among his supporters.  You should be well aware of Big Daddy's acrimony, because you even linked to the arguments between Big Daddy and JDavidB yourself as "evidence" that he might be prone to use the word "trifecta".


 * See above. Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Elee, every time one of your ridiculous charges are disputed you pass over it (without apology) and come up with two more. I think it's put up or shut up time.  Are you willing to accept these user's (to me, overly generous) offers of confirmation and apologize if they are proven to be distinct individuals? 216.119.139.40 16:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dismissal of evidence as "ridiculous," gross exaggerations, false offers of comity, and requests for apologies are all traits of BD777, and his sockpuppets. Thanks for the supporting evidence. Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we to believe it's just a coincidence that a user who claims to post so infrequently, and says he really isn't that skilled on Wikipedia, would suddenly appear on the administrator's noticeboard less than two hours after the block was issued, and carry on like this: ?


 * Uh, Elee, when your account is blocked you get a notice about administrative action when you try to edit. Then, all he had to do was look at the edit history of 64.154.26.251 and follow the link.  By the way it wasn't two hours after the block was issued, it was about two hours after the block ended. 216.119.139.22 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, point me toward that evidence, please. You seem to have a very good, almost first-person memory of it.  Do you think it's a concidence that this particular user, who claims to have only edited a handful of times in his long experience browsing Wikipedia, just happened to have an edit to make that particular day, only to find his account blocked?Eleemosynary 05:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest BD777 does this to create a much less "fiery" version of himself (an "aw shucks" sockpuppet, if you will). BD777, now creates a new account Viper Daimao and sends his sockpuppet at 64.154.26.251 a "hey, you have my IP address" message in order to establish credibility.  But he goes too far:  "Hey, you have my IP address. Do you work at the same company and location I work at? In houston, off of Bellaire blvd?"  It's a transparent ruse, with the subtext of… "hey, I'll write all this overwhelming info on your page, so no one will suspect we're sockpuppets."


 * I doubt if anyone's following this subject as closely as you are. 216.119.139.22 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly BD777 should hope not. Eleemosynary 05:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On "Viper's" Talk Page, he then tells us that "his IP address at work is shared by a few people," gilding the lily to build up an "evidence pile" in anticipation of investigation. He does the same thing again on sockpuppet 67124etc's Talk Page, repeating the same talking points, but this time adopting "yall" [sic], perhaps to better disguise "Viper" as a Houston native.


 * Good grief, wasn't it the admin fvw who established the server was based in Houston on the same 3RR board you just linked to? Is the same admin who blocked the two ip addresses and Big Daddy on charges of sockpuppeting in on the conspiracy too? 216.119.139.22 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but you're trying to misdirect again. fvw did indeed establish the the server was based in Houston.  And I suggest BD777 wanted his new sockpuppet, Viper, to reflect that.  Nobody's suggesting BD777 is not a sophisticated troll.  And fvw's action have been completely honorable and above-board, in any case.  One more thing:  a conspiracy is exactly what I'm not suggesting.  BD777's actions, sockpuppets, etc. are the work of him alone.Eleemosynary 05:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * BD777, under the sockpuppet cover of "67124etc" then sends "Viper" a message of commiseration. In doing so, BD777 shows his hand: the charges are "baseless" and BD777 has "a lot of enemies."  We've heard this from BD777 before.  "67124etc" later issues "Viper" another commiseration message set out to establish that 1) He is in California (and not, say, Houston), and, of course, that BD777 is wrongly accused.    Quite a lot of advocacy from such "impartial" users, wouldn't you say?  This little colloquy, by the way, is a Must Read:


 * Maybe they all just don't want to be blocked and sympathize with each other for having to endure the circus you have helped set up. 216.119.139.22 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's certainly the impression BD777 and--I'm sure, quite coincidentally, you--are trying to give. It's rather flimsy, though. --Eleemosynary 06:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Viper," on this very evidence page, uses the same diversionary tactic "64.154.26.251" does when he offers to take part in a Yahoo chat (which would establish nothing); namely, throwing up "interference chatter" to distract from the issue at hand. "Viper" uses the "whois search" as a means to prove… well, nothing again.  Another bit of "chatter" is the "Google Search" gambit, as if finding "Viper Daimao" in a Google search is some sort of proof that he's used the name "for many years now."  He might have well picked the monogram "Abraham Lincoln"; that has a lot of Google returns, too.  As for his claims to having used Occam's Razor to argue his case, not only has he not done that, but that's just the sort of hyperbole we've seen countless times from BD777.


 * Where does this lead us? Well, right here, in the Workshop.  Going by timestamp, one can almost trace BD777's frustration with these allegations, via the escalation of invective in his sockpuppets.


 * In no time at all, BD777 goes from this (under cover of 216.119.139.22) to this, (under cover of 67124etc). And it's the same playbook BD777 has continued to use through over a month of bullying and abuse: projection, accusations of slurs, charges of not behaving like an adult, dodging the issues, etc.  The sockpuppets are not as fierce as their owner, but their tactics are the same.


 * Lastly, I'd like to quote BD777 himself:


 * "Don't try to block me. Be reasonable and accountable in your reporting as I have a hundred IP's to choose from.".

--Eleemosynary 08:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of boring us with tales of how the "cover up" is so painful for you to watch, couldn't you at least wait until a neutral party accepts Viper's (what I feel is a) much too generous offer to verify his identity? 216.119.139.22 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not at all painful for me to watch; it's instructional. I doubt I'm boring anyone; certainly, you stuck around till the end of my evidence.  And as far as a "neutral party" coming to the fore in order to "verify" Viper's "identity," where do think BD777 will place that sockpuppet.  Kansas?  Guam?  The Galapagos?  Only time will tell.  Eleemosynary 05:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ok now you're just being silly. Yeah where ever shall we find a neutral 3rd party in the middle of an arbitration hearing. Your "evidence" up there simply can't be the work of someone who is taking this process seriously. Are YOU actually BigDaddy? I notice your comment-editing-domination of your talk page like Jdavidb described of BigDaddy, your copious use of personal attacks, your appearance on the same pages as BigDaddy, let's not forget your own in-depth descriptions of strategies involving sockpuppets with different tones and styles, not to mention suggestions for proper timing . I see from your edit history that you leapt into sophisticated revert wars from day one. Seriously, all your have to contribute is wisecracks, innuendo, and "scare quotes". Adults are devoting their free time here to hearing this out, and you apparently came to play games. How deep does your little conspiracy run? 67124etc 06:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, what is it they say about projection? Eleemosynary 06:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Now this is too much to be a coincidence. Wisecrack, innuendo, and scare-quotes, all rolled into one, right after I said it. Had to be intentional. Plus some pretty major irony, perhaps a veiled admission? I don't believe this person is being serious. 67124etc 06:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Trolling this page is extremely bad form. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi sorry if you misinterpret my arguments as trolling, that is not my intent. I'm trying to dispute the motives, evidence, logic, and common sense of someone calling me a sockpuppet. But yes that's the word that sums up what I'm trying to say about Eleemosynary's accusations, trolling. thank you. That would have been shorter to say I do admit. I'd also like to add the major 3rr violations Eleemosynary has committed as evidence of overzealousness; in one four hour period:            . that was Aug 22. Similar fireworks occured the previous day, and the day before. until... the user first signed up. I suspect there was more before that. I didn't even know what "rv" meant when I first started editing here. Actually, what is going on with this person and the Cindy Sheehan article? Anyway, has Eleemosynary calmed down since then? No here is two days ago:  which brings us to today. This aggressive revert-warrior is the only person seriously calling us sockpuppets. Perhaps he/she sincerely believes it, but is obviously way out of control. 67124etc 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Accuse the accuser" and "blame the messenger" (instead of providing counterevidence) is another BD777 diversionary tactic. Thanks for the supporting evidence. Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These explinations of how we are all sock puppets seem to grow increasingly intricate and ridiculous. Like I've said, the IP in question it part of a proxy that I use at work. At first I thought it might have been just for the building, but upon a google search I saw that it was a much wider area. I have offered to do anything to help clear this up, but all the evidence I bring is dismissed out of hand by Eleem, which leads me to believe there is nothing I can do to convince Eleem. I am still at home this morning, but I dont believe I will be able to edit anything at work. I would like to point out that most of those you are heaping this claim on are banned from editing, and therefore can say nothing in their defense here. You can see my IP that I'm using now belongs in Houston, that this proves "nothing" according to Eleem, is surprising. I found this whole discussion when I found the ban page that lead me to make that first post saying I would sign up a new account to try to clear this up. That is when I signed up and tied to make my page but I was blocked at work so I put it all on my talk page. As I was at work and blocked from contributing to any discussion I put the link to the google search on it as my only recourse at the time. I would also like to point out that from the very begining I have been the first to accuse myself. I came on this page to try to clear this up and then Eleem added me to the list of those accused and wove me into these charges. --Viper Daimao 12:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See above (re: letting the arbitrators decide). Eleemosynary 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your (increasingly ridiculous in light of the testimony here) accusations are premised on a slur: that Nobody would share enough of Big Daddy's opinions on the editing at Wikipedia to ever want to support him, because they're so off the wall.  It also assumes that consensuses are built solely on the number of participants who agree with a particular editing decision, rather than the weight of evidence and the soundness of the reasoning employed.  216.119.139.5 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not what Eleemo said. He said that although some of the behavior may differ, there is strong evidence (most notably, BD's own words and the timing of the sock appearances) to suggest BD used socks on numerous occasions. The thesis of your post is an outright dismissal of Eleemo's central point by calling it ridiculous - a tactic often used by BD to avoid actual reasoning to build consensus. You shuld not be surprised that some remain doubtful. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All right then, come, come, let us reason together. The thesis of my post concerns Elee's slur (which you seem to share in making) and his faulty analysis of the source consensus.  The growing ridiculousness was a parenthetical comment.  It was based on the willingness of the accused persons from all parts of the country to physically verify their individuality as well as my observing that those auditing the dispute, through different modes of reasoning all arrive at the same conclusion.  I had something to say about "BD's own words" on the Ann Coulter talk page, but Guettarda erased them, despite the fact that the dispute was disrupting the producution of the article and should be considered relevant.  I will rehearse them again here, if it becomes necessary. 216.119.139.34 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been no slur made here. Funny - BD also makes that exact same, unwarranted accusation of 'slurs' upon those who dare feed his trolling. This is not a slur - this is an honest effort to establish to the extent possible whether BD is engaging, as he himself threatened, in sockpuppetry. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Elee announced his suspicions of Big Daddy "Creat[ing] allies...in order to build a false consensus".  That is the narrow definition of sockpuppetry.  Big Daddy only threatened to get around blocks by using anonymous accounts, which, though it may be a violation of rules, is only sockpuppetry in a broad sense. 216.119.139.34 04:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So, to return to the actual point of my post - how is this process a slur? It's not.-- RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, Ryan, I was talking about Elee's accusations made throughout the wiki. I consider those quite distinct from Fred Bauder's direction of this part of the inquiry which so far has seemed reasonable. 216.119.139.22 05:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Either way, the allegations and attempt to prove whether BD is indeed responsible for sockpuppetry are neither slurs, nor ridiculous. Instead of invective which detracts from the wikipedia, let's concentrate on civilly discussing the RfA... -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The evidence suggests to me that in Elee's case, his contributions to the suit are growing ridiculous, and are accompanied, even in this workshop, with implied slurs. 216.119.139.22 05:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And I respectfully disagree with your view that 'his contributions to the suit are growing ridiculous' and that they contain 'implied slurs'. You're welcome to your opinion, but your attributions are counter to the point of why we're here - reviewing evidence. His evidence is cited and while you're free to disagree with it, calling it 'ridiculous' is an attempt to discount the evidence without considering it - directly counter to the reason we are all spending time here - instead of improving the encyclopedia. That is the real reason we are here - not to attack 'reputations' or avenge imagined slights. --RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand by my reasons for calling his accusations increasingly ridiculous. 216.119.139.22 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The appropriate google search is this or this, since the user said I almost always sign any edits ViperDaimao. There are no edits signed "ViperDaimao" or "Viper Daimao" in Wikipedia, according to Google.  Guettarda 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Those google searches dont work for me. However I have always said which pages I edited. Namely Talk:The_Dead_Zone and Talk:Newt_Gingrich. You can see me sign my edits at the bottom of both pages. I would simply ask what action I can take to prove I am not a sock puppet. Name it, and I will do it.--Viper Daimao 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These edits post-date the block. They aren't terribly convincing.  Guettarda 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * do they? I thought the block started at like 20:00 Oct 3, i.e. 3-4 hours after that. Else he couldn't have posted as the block lasted into Oct 4. Maybe you mean the accusation. 67124etc 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) p.s. just how convincing is the BigDaddy-the-machiavellian-schizophrenic-evil-genius argument while you're commenting?
 * OK, I went back through the records and found some more edits I had made. Talk:List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_%282003%29_episodes, Talk:History_of_United_States_imperialism, and Talk:Christopher_Walken. The Christopher Walken one I only signed Viper. It should also be noted that almost all of my edits have been to talk pages. Except for a grammtical error or two that Ive changed, and on the dead zone book page where I took out what I thought was a POV addition that didnt belong and noted my reasoning on the talk page that I linked to above. Again I ask, what do you ask me to do to prove I am not a sock puppet?--Viper Daimao 03:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon further inspection, the edit to the talk page of Christopher Walken is dated Aug 12th. Big Daddy's first edit is dated Sept 1st. Therefore, if anything, BigDaddy is my sockpuppet. Though in all honesty, I've never been clear how BigDaddy is connected to the proxy IP address I've used at work that is also used by 2,300 or so others, 64.154.26.251.--Viper Daimao 03:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, we're not retarded. Take a look at your edit history here... you don't need google searches or anything.  It's quite amazing that the first thing you do at Wikipedia is make one outside edit, a few edits to your user page, then you head straight for BigDaddy's RfA, of whom I'm assuming you've never worked with.  What other accounts do you use that can be verified? --kizzle 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * he came here after I directed him here . I assume he found me from the 3rr noticeboard, which I assume he was directed to by the block itself. 67124etc 18:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I am going to post part of what I posted on my talk page. go there to read the whole thing.
 * I do believe I have figured out a way to at least prove I am who I say I am. Since no one answered my question of what I need to do to prove myself, I have devised one myself. If you look at the google search for "Viper Daimao" you'll that is has somewhat of a presence on the internet. The EZboard profile for Viper Daimao lists my name as "Chris Bahr", and a member since Jan 11, 2001. If you look at my profile on the nuklearpower.com forums you'll see it also says that Viper Daimao is Chris Bahr. In a minute here, I'll just take a picture of my photo ID (with the personal info blacked out of course) and that should prove that I am well, myself. I mean, if a photo ID isnt good enough for you, what is? I could message you, I could write you a you a letter? I could call you on the telephone. I could send you an email from my work address? Come on, I'm putting out ideas here, while everyone else seems content to weave intricate plots and multiple personalities based on the fact that one of my IP's that is shared by thousands of people, matched another guy's IP that maybe matched BigDaddy's (I'm not even sure about that last part). Ok, I've uploaded the file to my webspace from my old college. You can find it here. If that doesnt prove I'm me and not someone else, at least give me a falsifiable test to take and stop merely weaving together new stories to try to take into account the increasing preponderance of evidence that says I am not a sockpuppet.--Viper Daimao 02:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly
I don't care if BD is using sockpuppets or not. I think what's more important is his behavior no matter what name he is using to post. There is ample evidence of his bad behavior using BD as his login name. We don't need anything else. --Woohookitty 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Move for a Temporary Injunction
1) has, especially since this arbitration process began, violated Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly by altering or removing comments he considers to be critical. Now, he has even created a "banned" list of people that he instantly removes all comments from. I move that a temporary injunction be filed to stop him from altering or removing comments on his talk page. What he does violates the spirit of Wikipedia and it defeats any attempts at reconciliation. What he labels as "stalking" are generally genuine attempts to help. He's now calling for a truce, but I'd argue that we need to have an injunction just in case he attempts this again. We've been down the "improvement" road before and it barely lasted a couple of days.--Woohookitty 08:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Frankly I don't much care if he removes comments. I do, however, think it's bad form and should be considered here as part of an overall pattern of behavior.  Altering comments is clearly unacceptable, and he has done that after an admin warning.  So, I would support an injuction for the latter. Derex @ 17:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I whole-heartedly support this move for a temporary injunction. In fact I asked for one in my opening statement. . Since then BigDaddy's behavior has degraded to the point that he thinks nothing of removing other's comments . He even attacked JDavidB who recently bent over backwards to try and help him. . Right before his offer of "truce" where he can't help but make a snide remark, He rants at Derex. . Then he went after WooHooKitty.  We've been through this whole "improvement" sham before,, the fact of the matter is, this user doesn't want a "truce", he wants a license to flame. And then he wants us to laugh it off as "just a joke", well I'm not laughing, and BigDaddy should not be allowed to continue using Wikipedia as his own personal playground. - Mr. Tibbs 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others: