Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed injunction}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appropriate scope of discussion

1) The mission of Wikipedia is to produce a reference work. Volunteer editors are encouraged to contribute sourced information and to discuss the appropriateness of the inclusion and arrangement of information. This sort of dialogue serves to advance the mission of Wikipedia. The posting of inflammatory comments disrupts productive editing activity Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. We are not threshing grain here. Fred Bauder 03:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Removing comments on Talk page in violation of Guidelines

1) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) 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. Evidence presented by me has many, many examples of this behavior and he keeps doing this on a daily basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by BigDaddy777

1) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) has frequently failed to assume good faith, been discourteous and engaged in personal attacks [1], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior for many more examples of trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The edit BD cites is lame to be sure, but the implication that the editor was mentally disabled is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 03:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. A skilled troller can successfully bait the unwitting and disrupt productive dialogue Fred Bauder 03:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. "Discourtesy and personal attacks" just doesn't do enough to describe BigDaddy's abhorrent behavior. Even on this Arbitration's own Evidence talkpage BigDaddy continues his incessant barrage of insolence. Mr. Tibbs 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suspected sockpuppets of BigDaddy777

2) Suspected sockpuppets include Barneygumble (talk · contribs), LEONARD WATSON (talk · contribs), Paganviking (talk · contribs) editing from 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs). 67.124.200.240 (talk · contribs) and 216.119.139.77 (talk · contribs) also suspected, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Eleemosynary and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:64.154.26.251.2FUser:67.124.200.240. Focus on sockpuppets is possibly due to bravado by BD, "Don't try to block me. Be reasonable and accountable in your reporting as I have a hundred IP's to choose from." [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Results of ip check Fred Bauder 13:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Since dynamic ip addresses are involved it is likely that some of the "suspects" are not BigDaddy777. Analysis of editing patterns is necessary to confirm identity. Fred Bauder 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. Who cares? None of this alleged sockpuppetry is relevent in the least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, it is, because using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3rr is not permitted. Also, using sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for your arguments is frowned upon. Guettarda 14:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. I would suggest the sockpuppetry is very relevant. BD777 has used sockpuppets on the Coulter page in an attempt to build a false consensus. He is also using sockpuppets on this page (and on comments since posted on the Talk and Evidence pages) to attempt to bluster, confuse, and distract from the issue at hand. Eleemosynary 01:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. I have used the IP Address 64.154.26.251 to post from. I also post from a dynamic IP Address, which includes a large range under the 216.119.etc. series, including 216.119.139.77. I am not Big Daddy. I have expressed my concerns about sockpuppetry in an incident unknown to me claimed by David Gerard to have used on the first account at [3]. I have never heard of and am not users Paganviking, Barneygumble or LEONARD WATSON. I have never sockpuppeted, i.e. used one account to pretend to address to another I had used. As I have said I have no control and am not the user at the 67.124.etc. series, and is now user:67124etc. I am willing to reveal my general location on a need-to-know basis. I am willing to participate in a large public online chat such as Yahoo Chat with an arbitrator to confirm I am neither Big Daddy nor 67.154.26.251. I am also willing to rehearse some of the contributions I have made over the past two years. Signed 216.119.139.73 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. To be perfectly clear, by Big Daddy I mean User:BigDaddy777. I have also never seen an edit history item of the 216.119.etc. series that I didn't write. I have never communicated with Big Daddy, except through Wikipedia pages. Signed 216.119.139.73 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I cannot believe that Barneygumble (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of BigDaddy777. They are nothing alike. They have never even edited the same articles. Gumble has been around much longer, first editing on 2005-06-13, while BigDaddy first edited on 2005-09-01. BigDaddy is much more prolific and expresses control-freak behavior on his talk page; Gumble does not seem to have ever done anything like this. BigDaddy can't seem to do anything but make personal attacks; while Gumble might have engaged in this, he seems focused on editing articles. Meanwhile, LEONARD WATSON (talk · contribs) and Paganviking (talk · contribs) have never actually made any edits, so I fail to see how they can be sockpuppets! 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) makes real edits that don't sound like anything BigDaddy would ever do such as [4], has been around peacefully editing articles such as Ann Coulter much longer than BigDaddy [5], and uses words like "trifecta": [6]. BigDaddy does not use edit summaries the way this guy does and probably never heard the word "trifecta." 67.124.200.240 (talk · contribs) states that he is 67124etc (talk · contribs) and I see no reason not to believe him. While it does appear to me that BigDaddy may have very recently (in the past few hours) started sockpuppetting, this accusation is completely meritless. Jdavidb 14:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am the anon 67.124.200.240 (talk · contribs). Accusations that I am a sockpuppet of user:BigDaddy777 and/or 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) are completely false. I should also point out that of the multiple parties involved in the heated Ann Coulter page, only User:Eleemosynary is making the specific claim that I am BigDaddy, and only after participating on the page for barely two days. User:CBDunkerson who has been involved in this ongoing disagreement with me expresses his skepticism here: [7]. Please compare my contributions for yourself, especially the content of my ample participation in discussion. As for innuendo based on edit timing, you try getting edits done when BigDaddy is going at it. Not to add to criticism of him but he gets very involved. Further I'm pretty sure none of my reverts returned to a version of his anyway, I only mainly reverted removal of my own additions or removed disputed additions from others. Except the last few reverts where I defended the other anon from reverts based on accusations of being a sockpuppet, which I continue to consider ridiculous. I will post with the anon IP in a second (edit: verified with this), and by the way am willing to participate in any and every means of verification to debunk these accusations. 67124etc 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am a second user, now Viper Daimao, that has edited with the 64.154.26.251 IP. I really dont see the basis for this investigation. A simple google search for this IP address results in over 2,300 hits. It is very clearly and widely used proxy address. So either we are all seperate people as we and others claim, or BD777 actually has 2,300 or so sockpuppets. Furthermore, I can provide much evidence for my unique identity. I have used the monogram "Viper Daimao" for many years now. Again, simply Search google for Viper Daimao to see my history. Do a whois look up of my current IP, 68.90.50.103, and you'll see it belongs to SBC internet services in Houston, TX. What I find mystifying is this presumed guilt. Eleemosynary who seems to be the only one bringing the charges talks that all these reasons for all of us not being sock puppets doest not "exonerate" us. This may be my USA bias talking here, but shouldnt the burden of proof be on those who would ban all of us users from this community? I am just going to add, now that Eleemosynary has officially accused me of being a sock puppet and has said he "Would like to put forth evidence". However, (s)he presents no evidence, only accusations. This lose and inaccurate usage does nothing to help us resolve this issue. I on the otherhand, have offered simple explainations Occams_razor, 'Occams razor', and provided actual evidence to this effect--Viper Daimao 02:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would like to put forth evidence that 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) aka 216.119.139.73 aka 216.119.139.5 aka Viper Daimao and 67.124.200.240 (talk · contribs) aka 67124etc are indeed sockpuppets of BD777. As for the other possible user names alleged, I can't really make a determination. I take issue with Jdavidb's assertions that the sockpuppet claims are "meritless." For instance, just because the anonymous IPs' tone and language differ (at times) from BD777's abusive harangues, that is not in itself exonerating evidence. Indeed, one of the more sophisticated uses of sockpuppets is to create allies that sound completely different from the primary user, in order to build a false consensus, and to avoid 3RR violations by switching identities. BD777 himself takes heated issue with Jdavidb's "trifecta" comment [8]. Evidence is presented on the Talk Page.Eleemosynary 01:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BigDaddy777's editing style and focus of activity

3) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) has a distinct badgering style of dialogue which is readily recognizable and edits with a focus on articles regarding conservative commentators which share this confrontational style Bill O'Reilly (commentator) and Ann Coulter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. One wonders if BigDaddy777 is not Ann Coulter, certainly a knockoff Fred Bauder 10:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. Yeah Fred, you might want to stay away from this one, as while I agree, the comparison is better left unspoken, as I don't see any utility in bringing this point up.
2. I think it's important to note that BigDaddy's editing style alone leads him to make personal attacks, be uncivil, and bait other users. In the evidence I am presenting the majority of BigDaddy's edit's to talk pages include some sort of incivility. And his extreme POV not only leads to POV edits and edit warring against the consensus, but to even more personal attacks and incivility. For example, He's used the phrase "church-lady liberal" as an insult numerous times. Mr. Tibbs 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WHOA

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDaddy777&diff=next&oldid=24894310 Some kind of a joke? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] "a clever joke" [15] ah ha, finally, an explanation [16] BD then deleted the forgoing and posted this Let's be grownups.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Some interesting questions Fred Bauder 14:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. But a simple explanation for the image Fred Bauder 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. It all ends with a happy thought, "Let's all be grownups..." Fred Bauder 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. You missed the exchange on KateFan's talk page about this. [17] . There's some more about this on JdavidB's talk page about this too. [18]. BigDaddy has no compunction about heading over to someone else's talk page to badger them. But he'll delete any comment from his own talk page that isn't praise. For example he constantly deletes even JDavidB's edits. [19]. And Katefan's edits. [20]. BigDaddy has done the "Oh, I'm going to improve, I promise!" bit before. [21]. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now. BigDaddy must be held accountable for his actions. - Mr. Tibbs 18:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Insight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDaddy777&diff=next&oldid=25036339

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. What happened there was JDavidB made a small post regarding BigDaddy's supposedly improved behavior that day on the evidence page. BigDaddy didn't like the fact that JDavidB realizes full well that BigDaddy is breaking the rules, so he goes after JDavidB. You can read a more complete exchange on JDavidB's talk page. [22] - Mr. Tibbs 17:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BD777 edits of October 10

BigDaddy777's advances [23] [24] [25] [26] their edits of October 10 to Karl Rove as examples of responsible editing [27] BD without comment, reverted by Guettarda (talk · contribs) with the comment "rv BD edit which, once again, removes pertinent information & links, and replaces it with tangential information" [28] BD reverts with the comment "Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 - Someone reverted this clearly explained and well-reasoned edit. That's one..." [29], reverted byRyanFreisling (talk · contribs) with the comment "Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 - rv BD's revert war. Your edit is plainly inferior to the existing copy, tangential and uninformative. Please observe the 3RR." [30], BD reverts [31] with the comment "Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 - Ryan's attempt to start a revert war and her unpersuasive name calling do not justify changing this. That's two.", Guettarda again reverts [32] with the comment "rv degradation of article quality as per Ryan, me and Talk", BD reverts [33] with the comment "Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 - Sorry, but removing POV and non-factual data does not = article degradation. That's a 3RR violation for the ryan/gueterrda tag team" BD removes description of external link as "movie" [34] with the comment "Consulting business and work in politics in 1990-2000 - spacing/cosmetic clean-up". A second edit by BD [35] with the comment "Allegations of the use of 9/11 tragedy for political gain - a tiny little grammatical error corrected at top. But we need to review the support both for/against rove in this matter..."

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. As this edit by BD had been previously been made all four edits count as reverts Fred Bauder 19:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edits reported as 3RR violation

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

User:BigDaddy777 (2nd incident)

Three revert rule violation on Karl_Rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:21 2 October 2005 edit summary: "I took out the Weaver quote cause it's unclear which "decision" he was referring to."

• 1st revert: 8:46 10 October 2005 edit summary: none.

• 2nd revert: 12:15 10 October 2005 edit summary: "Someone reverted this clearly explained and well-reasoned edit. That's one..."

• 3rd revert: 12:50, 10 October 2005 edit summary: "Ryan's attempt to start a revert war and her unpersuasive name calling do not justify changing this. That's two."

• 4th revert: 13:25, 10 October 2005 edit comment: Sorry, but removing POV and non-factual data does not = article degradation. That's a 3RR violation for the ryan/gueterrda tag team)

Reported by: -- RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is this user's second 3RR violation incident report in 3 weeks. Please see the first incident, on the Karl Rove article's talk page, which resulted in a temporary block being imposed on BigDaddy777. Note that BigDaddy777 is currently involved in an RfA. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Report of a clear violation, the only mitigating factor is BD's inexperience, probably did not realize it was a 3RR violation Fred Bauder 19:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. I think he knew full well what he was doing was a 3RR violation, and I think thats the reason he said "that's a 3RR violation for the ryan/gueterrda tag team". He's trying to game the system. Here's a recent talkpage post of BigDaddy's where he lectures other people about Consensus[36]. I don't think there are any mitigating factors here at all. - Mr. Tibbs 20:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Meanwhile on Talk:Karl Rove

BD advances this justification for his edit based on his interpretation of Wikipedia policy as expressed by User:Jimmy Wales [37], a comment regarding images, copyediting of justification, further copyediting, Derex (talk · contribs) responds [38], BD responds in detail to Derex [39], defensive posture by BD, RyanFreisling (talk · contribs) warns about 3RR and edit warring [40], more regarding image, BD tries to justify revert warring [41], Guettarda tries to justify his revert warring [42] BD comments on degraded nature of dialogue [43]. BD offers justification for edit regarding 9/11 comment [44], JamesMLane (talk · contribs) makes a facetious suggestion regarding characterization of Rove's remark [45].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of substance

The link to the movie Bush's Brain http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403910/ features on the first page a review entitled "Criminal attack dog revealed..." [46] all the user reviews. Amazon listing for book Bush's Brain with reviews, published by John Wiley. Amazon listing and reviews of the movie on DVD It is this language, "In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." which BD removes. In the book this language does not seem to be present, a search for "black illegitimate child" yields only page 257 (search for "black illegitimate child") and a Bush denial contemptuously dismissed by McCain.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The link to IMDb is what is used in the article. Fred Bauder 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. A link to the DVD or movie is not precise as the specific passage is not easily viewed. It requires wading though an extended propagandistic film of little substantial merit. The book however is searchable on Amazon Fred Bauder 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. Fred, not sure where you're going with this, but I wouldn't exactly trust user reviews on IMDB, cause I just pulled up a different one than the "attack dog" you revealed where it ended with "On a side note, if Rove isn't convicted of outing Plame, there is no justice in the world"... I'd stick to the Publisher's Weekly and Amazon reviews themselves. --kizzle 21:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not going anywhere except where the evidence leads. I am investigating Fred Bauder 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: