Misplaced Pages

• 04:32, 2 October
  • "See what I mean. He just had to stalk my every post which, if you look here you'll see is harrassment. This is what I've had to deal with. He's even been warned by people who agree with him politically but he...just...can't...stop...stalking. And btw, I absolutely have not been doing as this stalker suggests. It should be quite easy to prove. I'm, amazed at how delusional people get when they are so enraged with hate."

• 07:28, 2 October
  • "Now what's interesting and certainly ill-advised is how much passion those who want to keep Misplaced Pages mired in bias by censoring me put into the 'Back and forth and forth recriminations' part in their statements section. It's as though they don't think the arbs are intelligent enough to understand what's going on."

• 07:45, 2 October
  • "He thinks you are me. Hate can do this to a person's cognitive faculties! Ps Since I provided a reasoned legit explanation and context for my re-write, and no such counterclaim were provided other than childish mocking which are duly noted, the edit will go back in again. Any attempts to be revert t will be considered a second step towards a RRR violation."

• 07:53, 2 October
  • "I don't have to put you on. These ann-haters write stuff, I couldn't make up if I tried. lol!"

• 13:54, 2 October
  • "As promised in my guarantee above. I did in fact address the endemic bias in Misplaced Pages. More on my comments later. Those who attempted to silence me through their long established pattern of distortions and hostilities against not only me but other conservative editors like the one working side by side with me on the Ann Coulter page, we're proven to be unfruitful in their efforts."

• 18:29, 2 October
  • "Thanks Gator. It's amazing that someone who so grotesquely violated everything that Misplaced Pages stands for by potentially exposing 3rd and 4th grade schoolchildren to an explicit photograph of a pierced male penis simply to punish them for looking up President Bush in Misplaced Pages, is lecturing anybody about anything. least of all grammatical construction. lol! I'll be deleting his laughable attack in a few hours before his actions go beyond just amusing nonsense and back to the pornographic destructive patterns that are so much a part of his troubled posting history. I think Mayor Guiliani calls it the 'broken glass' theory."

• 18:39, 2 October
  • "Your desperate incessant nonsensical ramblings on my Talk page are now putting you in danger of becoming classified as a stalker. It would be a shame if you followed along the destructive path of user Eleemosynary. Just a heads up. Big Daddy. Ps Because of your abuse of the privilege of posting on my talk page, all future posts are on my delete immediately list."

October 3

• 00:36, 3 October
  • "Ps Also will be reinstating my reasonable, clearly defended, logical and explicitly documented before the fact edits and continue to do so ad infinitum undeterred by anonymous multiple-reverting page vandals. Just thought everyone would like to know."

• 01:16, 3 October
  • "Keep in mind childish pranksters and page vandals ultimately will not prevail at Misplaced Pages. Just ask Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales. He may be ready to crack down on such nonsense. It's sad to see how fast Kizzle has discredited himself, but please provide any supporting evidence you may have. Take care. Note: I also cleaned up the convuluted tit for tat McVeigh section. Here's how it looks now:"

• 01:20, 3 October
  • "People that I think have some authority tend to sit on their hands (except of course if I don't cross a 'T' correctly lol!)"

• 01:27, 3 October
  • "Page vandalism by Elemosynary reverted and reported."

• 01:33, 3 October
  • "A page vandal loses his wings."

• 02:06, 3 October
  • "Wrong again. Not upset at all. I think the more sunshine that's shed on this users 'contributions', the better it will be for the entire Misplaced Pages community. His back and forth attacks aren't distracting anyone from 'the evidence.' They are the evidence. Take care and Have a great week! :) "

• 04:12, 3 October
  • This is a list of all the comments BigDaddy removed from his talk page today, some of them were not just removed, but replaced with a personal attack:

• 04:26, 3 October
  • "Why anyone who honestly respects what Jimmmy Wales has instructed us would want to take this out is a question I hope someone can find the answer to."

• 04:46, 3 October
  • "BTW, just so you know, I'm not personally troubled by any of these attacks whatsoever. I've been in situatons like this, although quite not so outnumbered. (My guess is that there are 15 liberals/libertarians for every conservative.) And liberals have every right to be here and edit. I've read enough to know that Jimmy Wales's heart is in the right place with this and it's such an ingenious concept, it would be criminal to let it be controlled by any one political idealogy."

• 10:41, 3 October
  • "There absolutely is. And it's uncanny how predictable those peddling bias are. I'm just glad you don't make a pattern of UPLOADING pornographic photos to the internet and inappropriately placing them where elementary school children are likely to search. Or do you?..."

• 10:58, 3 October
  • "Hmmm..Civility. You mean like writing a complete stranger "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you." Just curious... Big Daddy. I know that comment isn't disrespectful. Because...well....you told me it wasn't."

• 11:23, 3 October
  • "You don't like me removing liberal bias from articles so you personally attack. And then when I defend myself you accuse me of being guilty of the very thing you just did. Not only that, and I'm holding this in reserve, but I did a little research and found that this is the exact same pattern...almost word for word that your fellow like-minded liberal editors have used to marginalize, discriminate against and ultimatly (with varying degrees of success) attempt to ban tons of other conservatives who wanted to clean up Misplaced Pages from systemic POV problems in the past. The similarity is almost eerie. I guess this is what's meant when the scriptures say 'There's nothing new under the sun?' huh?"

• 11:42, 3 October
  • "The whole process will only backfire. And not just on formerly-anonymous-now-Mr.Tibbs (wait until you see what I uncovered about his activities)....but all involved."

• 11:54, 3 October
  • "Thanks for letting me know who's been reverting my work without comment in the Coulter Talk Page. I asssure you that ANY re-introduction of POV will be removed...over and over again. It's the way Jimmy Wales has asked it to be. Also, I don't want to muddy your talk page but, if you go to Derex's page, you'll see the latest outburst from Elemosynary after he vowed to stop making personal attacks. Check it out before it's removed. Or since, you enjoy the history tab so much, you can always find it on my talk page. I guess you two guys kind of work together on alot of things, huh?"

• 11:57, 3 October
  • "I agree with Katefan's advice. It took me awhile to realize the wisdom in that counsel, but it's really paid off! :) Have a nice day."

• 12:10, 3 October
  • "You know when you 'garbage collect' like that on a rfa page, it kinda reminds me of how the POV warriors collect a litany of slams against Karl Rove in an attempt to poison his page. Isn't that coincidental? Your pal, Big Daddy. Ps But, I thought you 'We're only trying to help!' lol! Bummer, that I sniffed you out from day one, huh?"

• 12:36, 3 October
  • "This whole section is a cheap smear job anyway. It reflects a distincly LIBERAL pov mostly provoked by the false selective outrage of democratic opportunists after Rove uttered the statements. In my opinion, it should be removed or more likely corralled into the 'cheap shot ghetto' along with all the other items that fit the bill."

• 12:43, 3 October
  • "I can certainly understand why you would want to call for a an absolution on the mention of Jimmy Wales. But it's not gonna happen cause the inmates are no longer running the asylum. The attempts by POV warriors to game the system so that, in their world, the rules mean whatever they want them to be, is belied by the fact that Jimmy Wales came onto these very talk pages and spelled out how we should treat impartial sources."

• 13:44, 3 October
  • "Wow! Was it just a month ago that I was so angry! lol! Well, to be fair, that was literally when I first arrived and just started editing things without knowing how Wik Works. In fact, I didn't even know what a Talk Page was. But, for the record, I have ONLY posted as Big Daddy and even when I was on the road for a few days, I would ALWAYS sign off as Big Daddy. ... Thus ALL THESE CHARGES ARE SLANDEROUS. And, invoking the tried and true rule that what liberal accuse me of, they are usually guilty of themselves, I'm beginning to wonder about my accusers in this regard.."

• 13:48, 3 October
  • "But, one way to make it clear to everyone that these attackers are paranoid and delusional is for all those using anonymous names to register a distinctive user ID. I've always been against anonyomous users in general. But, if you have a serious reason for doing so, I respect that. And I greatly respect what you're doing here. You have NO idea how good it is to see that these people will attack ANYBODY who tries to remove bias. It sort of auto-makes my points for me. So, anyway thanks again for doing such a superb job on Coulter, but please consider getting a user name. You are great!"

• 14:05, 3 October
  • "The dust is settled and your 'forced guess' is flat out wrong. I think it should be very easy for someone to verify that there are apparently two anonymous editors who are falsely being accused of being me. There's no reason to not punish these 3rr violators NOW. They should be stopped from disrupting these editor's work. I can totally relate as they try the same thing with me. It would be funny that in their paranoia, they see 'Big Daddy' behind every door knob. But it's not when it affects the integrity of Misplaced Pages and this does. I propose a permanent lifetime ban on Eleemosynary and all of his sockpuppets (which, since he's falsely accused me of this practice, I'm apt to believe it's a deceptive act he's engaging in although I have no specific proof) and a ban of no less than 18 months for guetarrda for his joint participation in this act. A message must be sent that they cannot continue to gang up and harass conservative editors. Not that I've been told that these two anony editors they are harassing are conservatives, but these two are certainly trying to bring balance and that's all that's needed to cause these vandals to attack them."

• 14:11, 3 October
  • "On a side note, I feel very sorry for anyone in Misplaced Pages who's mistaken for me. The sheer angst-ridden vitriol, hate and poisonous venom that's routinely spewed on me merely for trying to remove POV is just water off my back. But I hate to see anyone else subjected to this abuse."

• 14:24, 3 October
  • "I am ticked that this guy even has to defend himself against these IRRATIONAL PARANOID DELUSIONAL charges. Doesn't anyone know how to get to the bottom of this? And once they do, whoever is proven wrong, should be given a LIFETIME ban. ... That is a very POWERFUL point. What he's saying confirms what I've observed. There has been allowed to exist for too long a CULTURE here that's so hostile....so degrading...so marginalizing to people that are merely asking for fairness, that it deters conservatives from even wanting to join Misplaced Pages. For shame, I say. For shame. "

• 14:28, 3 October
  • "It might be helpful to know it has been alleged, in an act of vengence and defiance of everything Misplaced Pages stands for, that these abusers may have compacted to capriciously REVERSE all my edits wherever they find them irrespective of their merit."

• 14:32, 3 October
  • "I take a definitive stand. The users elemonsynary and guettarda are the guilty parties. Period."

• 14:42, 3 October
  • "I'm not afraid of these POV warriors. Their fear of me however has turned them into paranoics seeing 'Big Daddy' in anything and everything they encounter that's fair at Misplaced Pages."

• 14:48, 3 October
  • " I think you're great and sorry you have had to endure the scorn normally reserved for me. lol! I appreciate your courageous move and hope this puts an end to the slanderous charges bandied about. Keep doing the excellent work you have to remove POV from conservative columnists articles. I GUARANTEE you we will succeed as this is what founder Jimmy Wales wants. Don't let the humorless or the hateful deter you. I still get the biggest kick out of Misplaced Pages. It's an ingenius idea and will prevail as Jimmy envisioned it. A FAIR encyclopedia, not a breeding ground for people of just one single distorted view of the world."

• 14:54, 3 October
  • "I observed with my very own eyes how, though he literally bent over backwards for these people, they just spit on him like he was refuse. Something's got to be done about this..."

• 19:19, 3 October
  • "But you both shock and surprise me with a personal attack in your very fist sentence. To suggest that I'm some knee-jerk reactionary spoling for a fight with the left wing cabal is to caricature me in a grossly distorted way. I'm here to remove POV. Period. Now, it is acknowledged by you and others that there are currently a preponderance of liberals in here doing the editing, although no one until you would be willing to admit that there was a left-wing cabal and a sinister one at that!"

• 19:38, 3 October
  • "And I might add I was still pretty much a newbie at this point and the incident had to do with ryan ERASING my commentary in an ARTICLE talk page!! Being new, I thought, if she can do that to me, I'll do that to her so it went back and forth until Kate stepped in within minutes I might add... with the above threat. I wonder if Kate can point out a similar threat to block made to Ryan or anybody else who's vandalized me in that manner?"

<day2> <month>_<month>-Evidence_presented_by_Mr._Tibbs">

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

BigDaddy's Article Edits

The reason why most everyone has been focusing on BigDaddy's talkpage actions and not his article actions is because breaking WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL is generally more disruptive than breaking WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, or WP:EW. And the fact that BigDaddy really doesn't make that many article edits compared to talk edits . Nevertheless, BigDaddy's article edits should not be ignored. This is a list consisting of only cites and is broken into three categories, BigDaddy's POV edits, vandalism by BigDaddy, and multiple reversions that are part of an edit war. The cites are arranged chronologically starting from the beginning. Note that BigDaddy will edit war even over edit's that are vandalism. The majority of BigDaddy's article edits were reverted in short order by the community, despite BigDaddy's persistent edit warring.

• POV edits by BigDaddy

• Vandalism by BigDaddy

• Editwarring by BigDaddy

Evidence presented by Kizzle

The following evidence is taken straight from the RfC evidence page, covers the period between Sept 1 and Sept 10, and is the basis of an RfC that BigDaddy calls a "pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around." The largest piece of evidence is something that cannot be expressed by providing diff links: It's BigDaddy's maintained ignorance of the RfC despite being endorsed by over 20 people, thus leading us here. --kizzle 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• "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 Misplaced Pages. You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension and in addtion to an obviouls lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack." -
• "For you to exicse that because of PATHETIC, PALTRY, nitpicking reasons like the ones you stated suggests you are a walking POV masquerading as a concerned editor..." -
• "Now Hip, I'm not sure of you're aware of this great new site, but it's called Google and you can type in any search entry you want and it comes back with all kind of useful information. You should try it. It's amazing!" -
• "Wow! Even a liberal hater admits she got it first. Although he is somehow mysterously able to discern it was 'by accident.' As for the rest of your drivel...well...You should have quit while you were BEHIND! lol!" -
• "I attacked the writing. Which was retarded." -
• "Finally, there are TONS of people working in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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."

BigDaddy's Views on Sockpuppetry

• "Bottom line: I ONLY post as Big Daddy and I use NO sock puppets. Thus ALL THESE CHARGES ARE SLANDEROUS. And, invoking the tried and true rule that what liberal accuse me of, they are usually guilty of themselves, I'm beginning to wonder about my accusers in this regard.." -

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

Particularly nasty in changing people's comments

Comment: "I'm not sure it matters to you, but don't you think its a bad idea (and very counterproductive) to change comments into attacks on people and then leaving their sigs in? You do it several times above, and it seems like you're looking for trouble. On the other hand, reading all this stuff, maybe you are. Windsagio 17:55, 4 October 2005"

BigDaddy changed to: "Nonsensical post deleted. Welcome to Misplaced Pages troublemaker...I mean Windsagio 17:55, 4 October 2005"

Finally...

The Nail in the Coffin

(posted on October 4, i.e. after the arbitration was accepted)

Evidence presented by Woohookitty

• Discussing editors who take issue with his POV edits: "LOL! These guys don't get it. If you try to present fairness and balance, they will treat you like Karl Rove who of course is their hate-surrogate for President Bush who in turn is a surrogate for who they ultimately hate most - Jesus. Since I'm just a 3rd generation hate-surrogate target, their bluster is pretty mild. But the closer you go up their food chain, it gets pretty nasty. They harassed Karl Rove's family home, threw a live grenade at President Bush and don't forget what they did to Jesus...Big Daddy Ps I knew all this going in. Have had TONS of experienced with these types of disturbed individuals. And I really hate to toy with them like this, but there's not much you can do with irrational people. Trust me, reason does not work. lol! Big Daddy 08:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)"
• Many occasions where Big Daddy voided out dissenting opinion on his talk page and labeled it as "stalking" when all it was was dissenting opinion (and these are all from the last 3 days). This is in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines: , , , , , , .
• Now BigDaddy is essentially vandlizing posts on his talk page by altering content: ,
• Now we have him putting me on his "instant delete list" when all I did was suggest that he stop removing users comments as it is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.
• He is now deleting comments correctly, but these still show his inability to work with people civilly on Misplaced Pages: ,
• In this last one, he actually blamed me for removing comments I had made. He does not take responsibility for his actions. .
• And now he is encouraging others to delete posts off of his userpage. And we have yet another "liberal" reference
  • "I'll be gone for a couple days...until Friday. Got a business trip (for you liberal Wikipedians, that's what people with a real life do from time to time.) If you're in Boston, think of Big Daddy as I'll be close. Gator and Paul, if you're so inclined, feel free to DELETE the usual junk from the usual suspects. You two are the ONLY ones that have my authorization to do so. If you have a question, delete and email me the contents. I do read each and every post primarily because I have an insatiable appetite for...laughter! Much love to all my peeps..."Big Daddy 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• And now we are back to deleting other users comments the incorrect way: .
• Here we have him just deleting a post with no note on his talk page, though he was warned to put a note on it. "All...deleted" isn't the correct format. Users need to label each deletion: .
• And here are cases where he's mocked the dispute resolution process by...ignoring people trying to help him: , and by claiming that arbitration is just some sort of "witch hunt" designed to "get" conservatives:
• Now he's violating the policy that states that no one "owns" pages: , .
• Now we have a ridiculous situation where he posts on my talk page. I post on his and of course, he deletes my post: .
• Evidence of BigDaddy777's bad faith edits. Taken from the talk page of this page...

• In regards to Fred's question, BigDaddy's edit's are generally POV, and part of an edit war against the consensus, He certainly isn't above the occassional bit of vandalism either. Ryan pointed out some other examples of BigDaddy's vandalism. Sometimes he'll even sneak an insult in the edit summary about the "ann haters". Here are a few more examples: . Here's one more unexplained paragraph deletion: . Here's one with a threat in the edit summary: . Here's one where he vandalistically deletes an entire section and then calls Someone Else a vandal: . I'm sure there's a lot more evidence about BigDaddy's article edits that could be presented, but do we really need to, Fred? Mr. Tibbs 03:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• I 'met' BD first on the Karl Rove article where his edits were vandalous (i.e. unexplained, persistent and disinformative) blankings of entire paragraphs containing episodes unfavorable to Rove - e.g. the 'self-bugging' incident , the Dixon campaign incident and the McCain 'push poll' incident , each of which led to revert wars and much trolling on BD's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Ryan Freisling

Violations of the 3RR

BD777 violated the 3RR on two occasions of which I am aware, each time resulting in a report and a temporary block. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Well, there's a little bit of abusiveness from BD directed specifically at me. A post of mine, which he deleted and replaced with this attack (yet keeping my sig, therefore misattributing the quote to me). Classic troll nonsense, accusing me of "the most egregious abuse of Misplaced Pages rules ever". Still have no idea what (if anything) he means. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nonsense deleted from a user - Ryan Freisling who engages in perhaps the most egregious abuse of Misplaced Pages rules ever to perpetuate POV slime Yuk. Just the fact that she was this close to my Talkpage literally makes my skin crawl ...Stay away. Love, Big Daddy"

BigDaddy went on to continue this 'new streak' of bad behavior - modifying others' comments on his talk page into insults and personal attacks , behavior for which he was ultimately given a temporary block , after multiple admin warnings which he simply deleted.

After having his temporary block lifted, BD777 continues his personal attacks on me, deleting others' comments in favor of a renewed personal attack :

"Well, I have no desire to brawl with anybody but Ryan's actions are so despicable I just don't want her anywhere near my talk page. She bully's people into accepting her twisted look at the world and when she runs into someone who's stronger (like me), she just tries to game the system to have them removed. I hope she doesn't think people are unaware of EXACTLY how she operates and that it's doomed for failuure.. Her ways are transparently obvious to intelligent people and spelled out in explicit fashion in my post below. In the end, people like that ultimately self-destruct because their motives are so fraught with hostility for others. And even for someone who's actions are as deplorable as Ryan's...it's kind of sad, isn't it?" Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"But I forgive you man. You're an honest and decent person who, like me, only wants to remove the endemic POV from Misplaced Pages. But seriously equivocating someone who behaves as contemptably as Ryan with me??? That makes that vicious slime attack that guterrda spewed when he suggested the '777' in my name stood for white power, seem charitable by comparison." Big Daddy 13:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ps On the bright side, Ryan's behavior makes Katefan and Hippocrite seem...er...not that bad. lol! :)" Big Daddy 04:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that I remain uncertain what specific behavior he's referring to and based on his pattern, I now see his behavior as pure trollery. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And another classic BD777 attack/troll/provoke post can be seen on this very evidence page's talk page. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ostensibly 'good' behavior on BD's part

So, I considered going thru and itemizing the evidence as Mr. Tibbs does above, and decided he had a good idea, in simply allowing the content provided by the user under RfA to speak for itself. I didn't want to be duplicative though - and I wanted to communicate the scope and nature of interactions with this user, and puzzled over how to do it given the vast body of abusive and inflammatory content this user has contributed in predominantly non-article spaces.

Then I decided that I would reprint this section from BD777's RfC, which Paul Klenk described as "evidence of BD777's improved behavior". I feel it very eloquently speaks to just how 'off-base' BD is in his regular dealings with editors here at the wikipedia, and in essence, speaks the best about BD777's conduct at the same time - as these are ostensibly the examples of good behavior on his part.

As Paul described it, 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)

And in my opinion, if the below conduct represents an improvement, this user is fundamentally espousing an anti-collaborative and frankly, trollish mindset. And if anything, they demonstrate BD777's awareness of the process of cordial and cooperative dialogue - and his lack of desire to conduct himself accordingly.

• 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 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
• 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.

Evidence presented by Derex

September 30

This is somewhat unusual, but I would like to enter this section Talk:Karl Rove#Resources of the Karl Rove talk page into evidence. I feel it is important to demonstrate that BigDaddy777 does not sincerely try to work towards consensus. I think it largely speaks for itself. But, do note that efforts to critique his suggested language are made by me, Derex, and by others, in a sincere effort to find a neutral compromise. Instead of iterating on this towards consensus, he diverged into a rant about his 'Clinton Model' that should be a 'precedent' for all of Misplaced Pages. In short, he seems more interested in brawling and showmanship and exposing a supposed liberal cabal than in sincere work towards consensus. This was my one experience with BigDaddy777 on Talk, but it was the "straw on the back" that persuaded me to sign onto this complaint. A broader scan of the talk page and archives shows that this example is fairly representative of BigDaddy777's style.

Evidence presented by Jdavidb

I offer the following as evidence that the list of alleged sockpuppets on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop page has no basis in fact. This is a comment copied from that page:

1. 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)

Also, according to User:Fred Bauder, results of the IP check were ambiguous: Jdavidb 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

October 7

• BigDaddy returns today and makes a good faith edit to propose changes on the Ann Coulter talk page. While still not fully familiar with policy and still a little rough around the edges, it is noteworthy that with the freedom to edit any page in Misplaced Pages he wants he is proposing changes on the talk page rather than forcing them through with a revert war. This is the behavior we want. We need to get continued assurances that he will respect the rules and work with consensus, but this is evidence that things are improving. Jdavidb (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eleemosynary

I offer the following as evidence that the allegations of sockpuppetry do indeed have basis in fact.

BigDaddy's threat to use "hundreds of IPs"

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

Statement and Response to Jdavidb (above)

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 .

I suggest that BD777 created 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) , and 67.124.200.240 (talk · contribs) to create a false consensus on the Ann Coulter page by buttressing each other's edits, and employing multiple reverts to avoid 3RR violations. When admistrator fvw blocked BD777 and his sockpuppets, BD777 than created Viper Daimao in an attempt to confuse the issue, and build another false sense of consensus on the Workshop page of this Arbitration. Sockpuppet 64.154.26.251 (talk · contribs) under an (admitted) alternate IP address in the 216.119 series has also posted a few rambling paragraphs of non-evidence directly below, in order to confuse the issue, and distract from the evidence.

Evidence that "Viper Daimao," 64.154.26.251, several IPs in the 216.119 series, 67.124.200.240 and "67124etc" are sockpuppets of BD777

On the workshop page Viper Daimao suggests a false choice:

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

Actually, there are some other possibilities.

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: ?

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."

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.

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:

Where does this lead us? Well, right to the Workshop page of this arbitration. 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.

--Eleemosynary 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by 216.119.etc. series

Objection to non-evidence presented by Eleemosynary on Evidence page

Eleemosynary has set forth analyzing evidence in his evidence section, rather than just presenting it. Also, in the first through fourth and seventh paragraph, a counter-hypothesis that the alleged sockpuppets are all individuals that he analyzes is not even present on the Evidence or even the Workshop page of this dispute.

Furthermore the analysis he advances through discussing whether certain remarks made in this Wiki can plausibly fit his hypothesis has been extensively disputed on the talk page of the Workshop page to where it was removed from the Workshop page proper by Fred Bauder, and could be moved again to wherever it would be appropriate.

Finally, repeated offers have been made early on (through an earlier related dispute) to definitively disprove this allegation, an allegation which is by its nature eminently falsifiable by a means not dependent on deliberation between competing speculative systems.

216.119.139.40 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
users prior 5 edits , the sockpuppetry speaks for itself Karmafist 15:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Karmafist

15:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• April 25, 2005
  • BD777 has another Sockpuppet, called simply "Big Daddy" .

Karmafist 15:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)