Revision as of 05:33, 6 October 2005

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appropriate scope of discussion

1) The mission of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. The posting of inflammatory comments disrupts productive editing activity Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and Misplaced Pages: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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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 , see Misplaced Pages: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)
2. A skilled troller can successfully bait the unwitting and disrupt productive dialogue Fred Bauder 03:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Eleemosynary and Misplaced Pages: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." .

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Results of ip check Fred Bauder 13:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
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)

Comment by parties:

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages pages. Signed 216.119.139.73 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
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 , has been around peacefully editing articles such as Ann Coulter much longer than BigDaddy , and uses words like "trifecta": . 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)
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: . 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)
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)
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 .

Evidence that "Viper Daimao" is a sockpuppet of BD777.

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 Misplaced Pages).

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. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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" , 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)

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?

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)

"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. Eleemosynary 01:19, 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)

1. 1. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
      1. 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)
   2. 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 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)

1. 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 Misplaced Pages, according to Google. Guettarda 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. 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?

1. OK, I went back through the records and found some more edits I had made. Talk:List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_(2003)_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)
2. 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)

Proposed remedies

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:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: