Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BigDaddy777

As a responce to Gator, nothing in this RFC has anything to do with the content or political position of BD777. It is about civility. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of that position and I stand by what I said. I don't think Bigdaddy deserves this action. That's my opinion.Gator1 22:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777 gives me a daily chuckle with his CAPITALIZATION and diatribes against the unseen liberal illuminati controlling wikipedia. I can't tell if he believes the stuff he says or if he's just pushing people's buttons most of the time. It sometimes seems that he understands the workings of wikipedia very well, but plays the fool to aggravate others (referring to wikipedia "supervisors", etc). Some of his edits are undisguised vandalism, others are subtle POV adjustments, some possibly closer to a NPOV but many just clearly not attempts at NPOV. Few of his edits add any information and he only targets politically contentious pages. He is very prolific, digging through his edits would take hours.

Anyway, the intentions in his edits aren't the issue -- his treatment of other users is. The constant berating of "liberal church ladies" is counter productive. I'm sure most just brush it off but others are probably genuinely offended and it just slows editing down to a slog of argument.

In his defense, BigDaddy did move most of his work to the talk pages. This RFC complains about overly long passages, but thankfully he has refrained from editing the actual articles without talking about the changes first. Also, though he is the quickest to apply labels and spew endlessly about liberal cabals, I haven't seen any of the editors on BigDaddy's favorite watering holes working towards an NPOV article either. I have also encountered far worse treatment from other users ("racist troll" among others) --Archier 23:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• But do you agree that he is violating No Personal Attacks, Assume Good Faith, and Wikipedia:Civility? --kizzle 23:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

No.Gator1 23:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Really, none of those guidelines? Because to me, the posted examples seem like crystal clear examples of not being civil at the very least. I guess we just disagree. --kizzle 23:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, really none. RFCs should be reserved for really bad offensive folks, not this guy.Gator1 23:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Just a clarification Noitall, an editor's conduct is just as important as the quality of his edits. This RfC is only disputing the former, I do agree that BigDaddy seems to have potential to positively contribute to Wikipedia. He just needs to learn civility first. This RfC is not an attempt to punish BigDaddy but to try to convince him to change his manner of dialogue. So I agree with your estimation that he should be warned and then end this RfC, as long as he learns from these proceedings. --kizzle 23:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we are in agreement as to the desired result. The only thing we are not in agreement about, and I know that many have a different point of view, is that I think RfCs are more serious than this and should be used for more serious issues dealing with editing an article. --Noitall 23:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

See, I disagree with that. I think that if someone, like Bigdaddy is making good edits and tries to maintain a NPOV on the articles (which is why Wikiepdia is here) but acts kind of like an idiot (to some people) in the talk pages (but keeps it to the talk pages) I think the edits are more important. This is an open forum, we need to be prepared to get a bloody nose and angry once in a while without worrying that someone is going to call an rfc to make you play nice. I think this whole thing it outrageous, to be honest. I've seen MUCH worse than this with no such action.Gator1 23:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is the behavior of the author on whom this RfC focuses that is at issue, not whether the RfC was called to make someone 'play nice'. Assuming good faith is a wikipedia tenet, not something to be arbitrarily ignored. If you look at the exchanges that prompted this RfC, you will find there is a preponderance of abuse coming from one, not both, sides. Argument is violent, and 'bloody noses' are fine, but one should only be 'bleeding' when one's ARGUMENT is faulty, not from cheap shots, personal attacks and name calling. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the RFC is very clear about what the goals are, and how it is not a serious impeachment or a precursor to more serious action. From the very first paragraph, "I have filed this RFC to get a full spectrum of perspectives about how BD777, and minority editors in general, can best prosecute their case without prosecuting their opposition." Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• As BigDaddy said himself, "there are LOTS of rules and guidelines." There are more rules and guidelines on Wikipedia than simply NPOV. True, the edits are important. But there's a reason why the rules section doesn't simply say "keep it neutral." --kizzle 23:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen some of BigDaddy's edits; I don't think its any big deal. Let him be, I say. --Bedford 00:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is an RFC is a VERY big deal and should not be instituted lightly, but should be reserved for much more serious conduct, usually involving edits to the artciles themselves. I simply don't buy that this is simply to discuss Bigdaddy, we cna do that somewhere else (his talk page for example) this is something a lot more serious and we all know it. Bigdaddy is abrasive as all heck, but if we all want this to be a truly open forum where (on the talk pages) we can really hammer stuff out, we have to accept that there will be people who will piss other people off and you just need to deal with it. We can't be calling an RFC everytime a hothead gets under our skin and drives us crazy. With all due respect, I think that RFC was wrongly instituted and needs to end sooner rather than later. Let the man speak and you can speak back without doing this. I've made my peace here and don't plan on writing anymore, just do the right thing. Please end this now...please.Gator1 01:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Uhh, RfC isn't really that big of a step. This isn't mediation or arbitration or anything, it's the first step in the dispute resolution process. I, along with several others, have pleaded many many times for BigDaddy to curb his hostilities with no effect. This is the proper next step. --kizzle 02:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. An RfC is much more serious than this and uses a large effort of the Wiki community. It is the first step towards arbitration. "Pleading" on a talk page when there is no real editorial dispute is about the most minor grievance someone has here on Wiki. One of the people involved here has done far far worse with quite a bit of disruption on many pages, and even requested an RfC filed against him numerous times, but no one has, because I think RfCs should be for more serious behavior and because the person showed signs of refraining from disruption. To me, this was good enough. I think that a simple promise from BigDaddy777 to watch his language, make his comments directly applicable to an edit, and tone down the rhetoric a notch would be plenty good. You don't need to do an RfC for that. --Noitall 04:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I beg you again, that if you think there are behaviors that you would like me to change about myself that I have refused to change on your direct request (and there are - for instance, I will not allow you to post images with false copyright tags, and I will not allow you to remove names from a project membership list, among other things), please file an RFC regarding my conduct, and action that I do not see as severe in the least. Please do not take our dispute to unrelated pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If that was a cheap shot against me, please go re-read our discussions and see where I berate you for being a "right-wing nutjob"... you might disagree with me on something, but mere disagreement doesn't warrant an RfC. In addition, if I did make any ad hominem attacks in the course of our conversations, I definetely apologize. This is the difference between me and BigDaddy. He refuses to step down or acknowledge his behavior. --kizzle 10:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Abuse is abuse. His words speak a lot louder about his behavior than yours. He has consistently called people names and attacked individuals, rather than collaborating on ideas. A 'promise' is not enough to ensure the abusive behavior will stop - hence, an RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A promise from BD777, along with a change in behavior discussed herein would serve to close this issue for me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did not mention names as to the example I used for far more disruptive behavior because I figured they would want to remain silent about it. But it is not Kizzle, who I may disagree with quite often, but I have never found disruptive (I don't think a passionate discussion on a talk page is grounds for anything). Since he once again used his name and called for an RfC, and since he was again disruptive just this morning, trolling my edits and going on entirely new pages to make bad faith edits on the actual page itself, yes it is Hipocrite that I am speaking about. --Noitall 01:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

This process is not a joke, Gator1

Please do not make this process less likley to reach a consentual conclusion. Your comment on BD777s talk page was unhelpful, at best. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... for those who think this RfC was hastily put together, let me reprint the attempts to communicate to BigDaddy that he needs to curb his hostilities (each one was rebuked):

• I'd also like to clear up another misunderstanding that I think you have. There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia who "greenlight" content, and Wikipedia does not "give approval" for certain passages. We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be. Not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." Instead, merely bring it up here with a concise, logical argument as to why it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Look at Paul Klenk, Mongo, Noitall (most of the time), they are conservative editors who try to discuss changes with those they disagree with rather than attack them. Don't inflame the situation here by turning it into a left/right war or claiming that conservative viewpoints are suppressed. There are several conservative editors here who are successful at getting their content inserted into articles because they politely discuss their changes through logical arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. - [1]
• ...My point is not debatable. You must conduct yourself according to Wikipedia policy (and it is a very reasonable policy) of discussing, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Like I said before, not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." If someone is harassing you, report them. Don't turn it into a justification to behave in an equal manner. - [2]
• "That's not how it works. There are rules and guidelines here. You don't get to deride other people and their work and force the rest of us to wade through your posts consisting of 15% reason and 85% polemics... Assume good faith, No Personal Attacks, and until you adhere to these guidelines, you are the issue. I sound like a broken record at this point: Don't use other people's bad behavior to excuse yours. It's time you learned to be civil and discuss your arguments rather than encourage hostilities around here. You still have not defended your actions but have merely responded that I am picking on you. Nobody should make these attacks, be it liberal or conservative (and you are' making these attacks, I have previously documented it), but every word that comes out of your mouth seems to be deriding someone or assumg bad faith on the rest of us. Stop now. - [3]
• "Seriously, unless you tone down the hostility in editing on Wikipedia, you are going to be subject to dispute resolution. I, along with several others, have pleaded for you to calm down and discuss changes without personally attacking or assuming bad faith on the part of your co-editors. Please for the love of all that is good and holy ASSUME GOOD FAITH and STOP PERSONALLY ATTACKING PEOPLE!! - [4]

The point is not his prior behavior, but his refusal to admit that there's anything wrong with his style of discourse. You are right that RfC's shouldn't be hastily or unnecessarily brought against someone. That is the very reason why RfC's require evidence that two separate people tried to resolve the dispute on their own. Hence the RfC. --kizzle 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

My view

While I do not want this on the main RfC page, I thought I would give my view here. I haven't researched BD777 enough to present a real outsider's view, but I have come across him several times. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I actually agree with Kizzle, RyanFreisling, et al... mostly. There is a small group of editors trying to push POV, and BigDaddy777 may be the worst I've seen in a while. On the other hand, half of the "hostile" comments are not necessarily hostile, or a personal attack. People seem to be reading too much into things. BigDaddy has had some issues in the past, and I would be suprised to see if someone tried to claim he has not (don't worry I've seen Gator's comments above). However, what do you hope to gain from this RfC? Most of the time, people like BigDaddy will not change. So if this is just a stepping stone to get to Arbitration, and then, banning, I feel this is possibly out of line. Like I said, I have not had the opportunity to go back through BD777's entire contrib history, and if you want to correct me that's fine. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in here. If I delve into this deeper, I may add more to my short summary. Oh, and one more thing... throughout this RfC process, everyone needs to remember that the same rules apply (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc.). If someone has a different view, don't commit the same errors that BigDaddy is accused of here. Thanks for your time. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not advocating ArbCom in this case, but I'm wondering why you think it would be out of line, especially if BD will not change his behavior? Gamaliel 18:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you are right. Perhaps I said it wrong, or am just unable to express my opinion in words. It would not be out of line if that's the case. What I meant was that if this RfC is just being used for the purpose of going to Arbitration, in an effort to get this editor banned, this RfC may be out-of-line. If this RfC is being used a some sort of trumped-up personal agenda or vendetta, it may be out-of-line. I see the evidence presented, and was just wondering what Kizzle, et al. hope to achieve from this RfC. I understand that before ArbCom can be undertaken, there needs to be other efforts to resolve problems, but if this is just being used for that purpose (with no intent or hope for change here), I don't really like it. I am in no way trying to defend BD, he has been iffy at best, but like I said, I don't really agree with some of the evidence presented. Perhaps I may be asking too much of the ArbCom, but if someone like BD comes along (with seemingly no ability or intent to change), maybe Arbitration could be a first step. Or maybe Mediation, or something. Like I said, I may just be unable to express myself typed out in words. Sorry. If I figue out what I'm trying to say, I'll get back to you. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to reiterate a key point that Hipocrite and I have stressed: This is not meant to be a stepping stone to Arbitration. If BigDaddy recognizes that he needs to adopt civility and does so, then all this disappears. I don't think that's too much to ask, but so far its been fighting tooth and nail just to get him to admit there's a problem. --kizzle 18:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I am heartfully sorry. I must have missed that point in my read though of the RfC. I withdraw my statement and endorse this RfC. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with Voldemort. I don't think he's an angel, I just think this is unwarranted at worst and just a real waste of time at best. He's never going to bend and say what you want him to say, and you can't get him banned or punished for what he's done (or else Hipo and Kizzle would be threatening that) so let's just end this and move on to editing, which is why we all are here in the first place. I really hope that this is the last I'll be saying on this subject, so I can get back to editing.Gator1 18:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are the only editor of about 10 involved on this page that thinks BigDaddy's conduct is ok. Even Noitall echoes my sentiments, apologize and move on. Violating Wikipedia official rules consistently and without remorse is indeed grounds for further movement up the dispute resolution ladder. We are not seeking this because our goal is not to punish BigDaddy to the full extent possible but rather catch his behavior early so that his civility can rise to the quality of his edits. --kizzle 18:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, I never said his conudct is "OK" I really hate when people put words in my mouth. I just said I don't think he's violating policy or violating it enough to warrant this very serious action (and it IS serious, if he doesn't respond what will you do if not try to take it ot th enext level???) And yes, the policies are technically violating all the time without an RFC being filed (was it you or Hipo that just referred to BD as a"jerk?"). I just have a different reading of the poicies than you do. A reading that allows for more back and forth and "bloody noses" in the talk rooms and I don't like a strict interpretation of them becuase they lead to people using the system to try to control other people and initimidate them. I'm not saying that's happening here, but I just don't like where this is heading and I'm NOT the only one who feels that ways, so don't try to marginalize me.

I think this RFC has worked to air opinions about BD somewhere other than a talk page, so it should end, because he's NEVER going to (and never intended to) respond, we all know that. So unless you plan to take this to the next level and try, in vain, to get him punished, than I implore ou to end this now and get back to the good stuff....editing.Gator1 18:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I do not intend to elevate anything unless BD777's conduct deteriorates. The stasis quo is worth of an RFC, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is not about making other contributors bleed. That you think it is shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is Not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not this goes on to the next level is BigDaddy's choice. Thus, he may view this RfC with whatever level of seriousness he may like. Policies are violated very frequently (see where I call BigDaddy a troll at the top), however making them with such frequency and without remorse is inexcusable, and can be considered far from a "strict" interpretation of Wikipedia official policy. BigDaddy has consistently demonstrated his preference for hostilities in discussing with other editors. If he continues to do so and ignore repeated attempts by his co-editors to get him to follow Wikipedia official policies, than sadly this must continue. ---kizzle 19:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think Hipo and Kizzle need to get on the same page here because I'm reading different things. Hipo is promising that this will go nowhere but Kizzle is saying it will if BD doesn't do and say what you want him to (which he won't). Let's get this cleared up shall we?

To Hipo: You've accused me, now. twice of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. I take some, limited, offense to that. I think I understand Wiipedia at least as well as you and I don't appreciate the down talk, to be quite honest. The fact is that the talk pages on Wikipedia or RIDDLED with some pretty outrageous stuff and I for one don't get my panties in a bunch about it. You can't one one hand, try an micro-legislate behavior and still have a free an open forum on our talk pages. Let this fish go, Hipo, there are bigger fish to fry, much more deserving of an RFC. I'm beginning to see a vendetaa here (you and Kizzle and BD have gone back and forth more than anyone) and it's starting to turn ugly. Either end this here or just tell us what you plan to do when BD doesn't reply and be honest with us, because HE'S NOT GOING TO REPLY.Gator1 19:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to get on the same page here, as we are two totally different people. I don't intend to push this to ArbCom unless BD777 deteriorates. I'm going to accuse you of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia again, and I apologize if you take offence - people are not supposed to be personally attacked, anywhere, ever. Anyone who personally attacks is violating policy, needs to acknoledge this, and stop. If I've done it, please point it out to me on my talk page, or as a responce to my personal attack, and I will acknoledge it, and stop. WP Is NOT a free and open forum. It's in WP:NOT. There is no vendetta here - WP:AGF. Look at the history of me trying to resolve the dispute - look at the history of follow-up edits I've done to BD777's POV pushes. There's no vendetta here. BD777 can choose not to respond if he feels that way - let me say for the record that if NGB is right, and BD777 is going to stop the personal attacks, that a response "I will stop my personal attacks. ~~~~" would suffice. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up, I'm on the same page as Hipocrite. I didn't mean to come across as hoping to continue this past RfC, if BigDaddy's conduct is no longer a problem than I don't see any reason to continue this past RfC. That's what an RfC is for, it's not a stepping stone towards Arbcom, it's a chance to get an outside perspective on the matter. And it seems almost universal that people find a problem with BigDaddy's conduct, of which civility and avoiding personal attacks are Wikipedia official policy. So as long as he recognizes that and changes his behavior to be in accordance with these official policies, I'll be happy. --kizzle 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

And if he doesn't do what you ask and continues his behavior, please tell us what you plan on doing then? Do you really think you can get some sort of punitive sanctions here? I don't think you can, but I may be wrong. Let us all in on what he plan is if (when) BD doesn't do what you want. For the record....I don't think personal attacks are acceptable, but I just don't think an RFC (which IS a steeping stone to arbitration/mediation and you know it) is warranted for the KINDS of personal attacks that BD has committed, we just need to have a thicker skin and move on. Stop the crying and start the editing, is what I say. I'm done on this, I've got better things to do here and have wasted enough of my time.Gator1 19:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Stop the crying...

Nice. --kizzle 19:38, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

lol, you're not going to answer the question are you?!Gator1 19:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gator, I was the one who was first advocating this position, but Kizzle and Hipocrite have both said that there is no intent to take this any further than it has to go. Do as I did when they say this, assume good faith. If they say they have no intent of taking this to ArbCom or Mediation if they don't have to, believe them. And if BD does not stop his problems, I will be right there with them filing a petition before ArbCom. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

To the substantive point, If the vitriol or frequency of the personal attacks increases, or remains at the current level for an extended period of time, I would ask User:Ed Poor to take an active role in mentoring this user, as I have found him to be incredibly good at such interactions. If he cannot find the time and there is no reasonable replacement, or believes he has failed in such interactions, I would ask the users who were more heistant of this RFC (Voldemort, NGB) if they considered Arbitration an acceptable action at that point. If they did, I would file such a request. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification HIPO and good luck with that.Gator1 19:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you weren't being sarcastic, then thanks for the wishes. --kizzle 19:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Me? Never.Gator1 19:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

NGB's view

NGB - if you make headway and BD777 improves as to make this RFC moot, then the RFC will be moot. Like I said - I welcome such a result, and think it would be the best of all possible worlds. I lookforward to the appreciable improvement in results. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Most recent opposer:

I do not appreciate the most recent opposer's behavior on this RFC. Bringing up things from 6 months ago about one of 19 cosigners is totally irrelevent. Doing it anonymously is even worse. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not "one of the 19 cosigners", it's the initiator of the Request. Way to try and trivialize his importance. And when we see an initiator demanding that a fellow wikipedian adhere to standards that he himself does not live up to, it's evidence of bad faith on the part of the initiator. And the icing on the cake is that you insist I use a user ID after the initiator had followed a Wikipedian around with a user ID for two weeks "garbage collecting" the angry parts of his conversations without providing any context for what might have inspired the anger (it might have been outrageous behavior, and thus justified). 64.154.26.251 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

What part of your response framed the evidence section as in accord with WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, or WP:AGF? Oh that's right, you're not opposing this RfC based upon the merits of the case but rather because I hurt your feelings 6 months ago which I already apologized for. --kizzle 23:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

re: motion to suspend

It is clear now that Hipo (and Kizzle to alesser extent) has a clear personal grudge against BD and will not stop this farce until BD says and does EXACTLY what he wants (which will never happen) no matter how much improvement he makes. I for one am sick and tired of this ridiculus display and am taking this page off my watchlist right away. It's not going anywhere (irrelevant) and is just being used for people to pile on the criticims and attack anotehr user. I really hope that everyone now sees this RFC for what is truly is: a personal vendetta by Hipo against another user. Deny it all you want, but it's obvious now. (here come the denials....)Gator1 01:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you took my motion to give BigDaddy the benefit of the doubt where I recognized he has "progressed considerably", complimented him in his potential for greatness here, and then you concluded that I have a "clear personal grudge against BD" to a "lesser extent"? What is clear to me is your complete misunderstanding of almost every aspect behind this RfC and its purpose, a complete misunderstanding of the dispute resolution process in general, and your view that despite a plethora of documented personal attacks which inarguably violated several Wikipedia policies, you give BigDaddy a free pass. Thank god you took this page off your wishlist. --kizzle 01:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator1: Is it really too much to ask that BD make some acknowledgement of this RFC? It's hardly a farce: 13 independent editors, beyond those certifying, agreed that BD was acting poorly. Apparently, some of it is because BD is still learning what wikipedia is about. Fair enough, then all BD has to do is agree to follow policy, state so here, and then actually do it. End of story. Explicitly responding to the complaint here is respecting the process. Calling that request a 'vendetta' seems somewhat exagerrated to me. Derex 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"somewhat" exaggerated is definetely an understatement. --kizzle 02:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If BD777 agrees to follow Wikipedia policy, and then does so, that would be great. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777's rudeness and stentorian rantings notwithstanding, recent goings-on have called into question some of the charges against him, namely, charges of "vandalism." It has now been established that the decidely incorrect throwing around of this term "vandalism" has been a ploy to bully him away from his good faith efforts to trim articles of a glut of negative material, and an excuse by others to make reversions of edits they did not like. His deleting of one or two sentences at a time, characterized as "bulk removal," were clearly within his right. They do not in any way meet the definition of vandalism. All claims in this RFC that he is a "vandal" therefore need careful reevaluation, and possibly retraction. All fights and disputes resulting from those charges of "vandalism" therefore must also be brought into question.

THERE ARE NO CLAIMS OF VANDALISM IN THIS RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but as I said above, many, many false charges of vandalism against BigDaddy777 were the fuel that lit many of the fires that led to this RfC. I have seen no one retract any of those charges, +or take responsibility for the part they played in the disputes between BD and others+. If someone can show me a valid example of vandalism by him, I'll review it. (As a humorous aside, allow me to point out that typing in ALL CAPS has been mentioned in BigDaddy's RfC. But nobody's perfect.) paul klenk 06:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not technically correct, I am correct. This is not an RFC about NPOV or content, which is why we don't have NPOV or content listed. It's not about vandalism. Neither of the co-proponents, to the best of my knolwedge, have used the word vandalism, or made any false charges. I have no need to apologize for anything - I am BD777's main target, and I have not once done any of the things you discuss. It is imperitive you review the record. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, am hoping BD will give comments on this page. paul klenk 02:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I never called him a vandal. I called some of his edits vandalism. He makes other, valid points, sprinkled within the scores of personal attacks, threats and bullying - so I wouldn't label him a vandal. And I won't feed any more revisionist trolling - the incident is closed, and no block issued. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not mention any names. But, who else commits vandalism but vandals?. More directly, what happened directly bears on BigDaddy's behavior, the ensuing fights, and some of the motives behind this RFC. paul klenk 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On your last point, we are agreed. As to the former - if you separate the behavior from the individual, it is easier to refrain from personal attacks...-- RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll also add that your latest posting of BigDaddy quotes under 'improved behavior' really doesn't contain much representing 'improved behavior' at all, and seems much more like an attempt to 'balance' the information I just added... I don't see how it serves the factual intent of this RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Whatever they accuse you of, accuse them back - whatever they do, do it back - without regard for fact"... a very Rovian strategy. And very bad faith. I expect that now, true to form, you will do the same to the items in the 'disputed' section, merely for retributive reasons.-- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that opinion, Ryan. I'll let my introductory comments speak for themselves, and allow others to review the quotes I have added in light of my remarks. Remember, this is evidence of "improved" behavior, not "perfect" behavior. I think they show improvement. I'm sorry if they seem to balance your efforts -- that was not my intention. It's just that I don't see anyone elseo trying to provide any quotes that show evidence of improvement at all (although many people have mentioned that BigDaddy777 is, in fact, improving.

"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 04:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to this reader, they don't. They show a continued flippancy and willingness to accuse and attack. The amount of effort this user has drained from this community as he gradually improves from outright attacks to couched attacks is astonishing. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Defending one's behavior, and objecting to others' bad behavior, is not accusing and attacking. We can't begrudge him that, especially during this period where people are "piling" on him. I even caught an anonymous IP'er with one week at WP last night loading quote upon quote on this page. He was even trolling other pages aggressively soliciting comments here. When I confronted him, he suddenly stopped. I think many parties here have to take responsibility for wrong behavior at times, and for contributing to the problem. I know it can be exasperating, Ryan -- I truly do. But BD is not the only one to blame. paul klenk 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. This is BD's RfC and I am citing his conduct. That is why we're spending our energies here when we would otherwise be editing articles. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I don't understand who the following remark of yours is addressed to, or what it means. Could you please shed some light on it?: And very bad faith. I expect that now, true to form, you will do the same to the items in the 'disputed' section, merely for retributive reasons. paul klenk 04:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel I was quite clear, and I will refrain from feeding the troll. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I truly don't understand it, and I don't know what "feeding the troll" means, either -- I am now further confused, not less confused, by your remark. Would you please take a moment to explain? Many thanks. paul klenk 04:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it best to leave it there, and avoid what has become a relentless 'tit-for-tat'. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI: See Internet_Trolls to see what "feeding the troll" means. --NightMonkey 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping explain Ryan's remarks. I now know what "feeding" means, but it doesn't help me understand who she was referring to when she said, "I expect that now, true to form, you [emphasis mine] will do the same to the items in the 'disputed' section, merely for retributive reasons." It seems aimed at me, but I can't figure out the basis for it. paul klenk 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to avoid tit-for-tat. If you feel like sending me an explanation in private, I would be happy to review it -- and keep it confidential. paul klenk 04:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

To review

I will go over the improved behavior bits you noted, but please do not edit the sections you do not aggree with.

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)

• [5] 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.
• [6] I'm glad to see you noticed I'm 'getting better.' I am still quite new afterall and didn't know what to expect although my initial gut feelings have all been confirmed [accompanied by the edit summary] Ok KateFan, how would you handle this one?
• [7] 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.
• [8] 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
• [9] 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?
• [10] In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol!
• [11] 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.
• [12] We don't have an encyclopedia if it's not fair balanced and impartial.
• [13] 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
• [14] Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know.
• [15] 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.
• [16] 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.
• [17] I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?
• [18] In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts
• [19] And I will point out that Ryan has accused me of 'vandalism' simply because I, with thorough attribution, removed biased sections of the article. Did you reprimand Ryan for that? I'm asking for decency and fairness and not to be singled out

quotes added by paul klenk 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional comments which demonstrate the qualities I have described above:

• [20] 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.
• [21] 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.
• [22] Since this article almost reads like campaign literature, to add balance I'm inclined to include what Randall Terry feels about Wasserman Schultz's involvement in the Schivo case.

quotes added by paul klenk 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I truly hope BigDaddy appreciates the tremendous amount of effort you have put forth to help him. --kizzle 17:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Addition of link to top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BigDaddy777

Note to kizzle, Hipocrite and others:

• I have added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BigDaddy777 a link, at the top of the page, for the contributions of BigDaddy777 from his anonymous IP. He has mostly used this IP on the 18th, and has usually signed these edits "Big Daddy on the road" -- certainly he has not tried to hide this use. I hope this will help you more easily identify all his edits. paul klenk 08:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What "road" do you have to be on where you are still able to edit behind an anonymous IP yet can't log in? If he can edit, he can log in. And, of course, he could respond to the RFC. Seems very suspicious to me, as if he was trying to "Game the System". --NightMonkey 10:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Night, with respect, your use of "gaming the system" in this context is a pure non sequitur -- it has nothing to do with anything. Please don't look for the worst possible explanation. BigDaddy often uses a browser which is much faster, and for some reason does not log in when he uses that browser, but clearly says who he is. The only suspicious anonymous IP-ers involved here are the ones who have been around for 9 days and are already familiar enough with the RfC process that they're actually driving it. paul klenk 12:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, every day that passes with BigDaddy active elsewhere and still opting not to participate in this RFC only serves to add weight to the suggestions of those that brought it. If he is editing and active elsewhere, and has not made it clear that he intends to respond to this RFC then that constitutes him deliberately ignoring it, since he clearly knows an RFC has been filed. If it is the case that he is aware of it but does not yet have time to respond to it (though intends to do so), it is a different matter as it shows he is at least willing to discuss his conduct with a view towards taking other people's advice on-board. If kizzle et al. are wrong or have misconstrued what he meant, let him come forward and present his view. It's not impressive for BigDaddy not to bother speaking in his own defence, especially when an RFC having failed paves the way for arbitration - even though most of the involved people have said that they're not seeking that stage yet, nor do they view this RFC as a hoop to jump through to reach that stage. He needs to participate and argue his corner, or at the least show that he intends to do so if time has prevented him from doing so yet. --Sanguinus 12:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

By "Gaming the System" I mean using an anonymous IP in order to not be tracked by the "User Contributions" link, either here or on his user page. --NightMonkey 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I know what "gaming" is. And by signing his contributions, he has defused anyone's ability to make such a claim against him. And I have helped you track these cont's. by making sure you have a handy link. Now, if you're going to continue to complain about it, take a moment to review someone else's anonymous IP use, with respect to this RfC. This person has never identified him or herself, but -- wouldn't you know -- they showed up around the 10th of the month, with an axe to grind against BD. After a few short days here, they are already familiar enough with WP to harvest an onslaught of BD quotes to add to this RfC, but they're not familiar enough with etiquette to realize that you must respond to civil messages on one's talk page. Instead, this anon has ignored me and has blanked all my messages on his, or her, talk page. paul klenk 20:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with anons you tangentially mention above is a seperate problem, one which you should most definitely request Admin assitance with. When I'm looking at this RFC, I'm focused on this specific RFC. And, that said, I'm not happy about BD777's on-going lack of civility in his relationship with WP editors, WP policy and WP guidelines. This idea of being "on the road" is nonsense, from a technical standpoint. Either you are on Wikipedia via a browser, or you are not. --NightMonkey 21:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick point -- IPs and running sockpuppet checks etc. are entirely outside the bounds of administrator privileges. For something like that you would need the assistance of a developer. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the number of people and "anons" who have felt the need to respond to this RfC and BigDaddy's behavior in general is good evidence of just how serious a problem this is. Here's another "anon" who sums up the situation quite nicely: [23][24] 69.121.133.154 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I am under No Obligation to respond to your attacks on my character on my talk page: "For someone who has purportedly been here only a week, it really says something about why you are here." "Hiding behind anonymity while doing so is likely to one day backfire."[25]. Even if you had been civil towards me on my talk page, I certainly don't have to respond to you. "must respond to civil messages on one's talk page". You are doing the same exact thing to me now that you did to Ryan. Trying to impugn my character in retribution for contributing to this RfC. Stop it. 69.121.133.154 21:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

CD, first of all, it is most definitely not "your" talk page -- you share it with others using your IP. Unless you are taking credit for every single contribution under that IP, you cannot take offense at messages which are addressed to an entire group of users sharing one IP. If you want a talk page you can call "your own," register and log in. You've only been here a very short while -- it's not like you'll be losing a lot of significant contribution credit. Anyone can read its history and draw their own conclusions, just as they can read Ryan's history and decide whether I was being uncivil when she blanked a message with the words "complete bullshit" in her edit summary. Leaving a "welcome message" is a sign of civility. You ignored it. It is your privilege, I guess, to aggressively go after users you have a problem with. But you cannot complain if others hold you to a comparatively higher standard, you you cannot complain if I exercise the same privilege towards the group of anonymous users sharing that IP.

I don't condone what BD has done, and I won't hide my disappointment that his improvements -- which are evident -- are not more pronounced. But we work in a community here, and it takes two to argue, two to dispute, and two to engage in edit wars. It only takes one to ignore another user. Please understand the rules and guidelines -- and the spirit of Wikipedia -- before slamming others for breaking them with such glee. I find it decidedly ugly.

These comments of mine are quite germaine to this RfC discussion, as they underpin many of the reasons for the RfC being brought in the first place. Besides, I have to address you here, because you've ignored my messages on "your" talk page. No one has completely clean hands in this affair. paul klenk 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have completly clean hands. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for their own behavior, thus I hope you're not inferring that outside factors caused BigDaddy to rack up the initial list of evidence. At some point, we have to hold people accountable, especially if they're not even willing to discuss the matter nor apologize for their inarguably hostile behavior. --kizzle 17:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Motion to Suspend Suspended?

OK, I believe it is Wednesday everywhere on Earth, even "on the road". Will the Motion to Suspend be withdrawn? --NightMonkey 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep discussion here

Many of this RFCs sections are clearly marked to indicate that discussion should happen on only this Talk page, yet, as you can see, discussions have erupted everywhere. Please keep the disussions where they belong. I know that this is probably going to be filed under "Fat Chance", but can the errant discussions on the RFC be moved here? Pretty please? --NightMonkey 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not refactor the page, please

Please do no refactor and move comments around and rearrange parts of the page. I know it's temping to, but doing so makes it more confusing for impartial persons to ascertain the substantial, material reasons for the RfC and to see how things have developed. Calicocat 05:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA vote - kosher?

Kizzle, you rescinded your motion to suspend, and added a "vote" to send this to an RfA. I'm ignorant of how these things work, but is calling a vote to do that part of the RfC process, and does the vote have standing? I just want to know before I "vote". --NightMonkey 05:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not in a technical sense, I just was getting a sense as to whether or not other people agreed that BigDaddy is not respecting this RfC in any way and thus this should continue to Arbitration. It's not binding, its not final, I was just getting a rough count. --kizzle 05:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved scads of content:

I have moved all the post RFC behavior, all of the threaded discussions here.

Please do not refactor pages like this and sign your comments.

Evidence of disputed behavior after the filing of this RFC

[26][27][28] [29] [30]

• "Ps I've enlisted the help of a WHOLE LOT of conservatives to watch and observe what goes on in here and to report it across the blogosphere. There were informed just how treacherous and mean spirited (not to mention 'incivil' lol!) the liberal editors have been to Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson etc etc (the list goes on forever. I want you liberal POV editors to know that your sliming, defaming and distorting of the truth will no longer be tolerated in Wikipedia. In the future, I'd kindly suggest going to democraticunderground and howl at the moon. I've been informed that all this DISinformation you've been putting out there is TOTALLY against the spirit and intent of Wik and it's founder Jimmy Wales vision. - [31]
• "I just re-read your laughable defense of the 'conservative' Cindy Sheehan lol! Man, she sure jumped the shark in a hurry, huh? Sorry things didn't work out for her like I'm sure you and her liberal friends would have wanted." - [32]
• In response to a {{welcome}} message left by Hipocrite, BigDaddy777 responded: "Man, you know there is a SYSTEMIC problem at Wik when they have someone like Hippocrite give you the official greeting! I have found Hippocrite to be biased, vindictive, grudge-bearing and incompetent in her/his command of the facts on multiple occasions in the mere week or so that I've been here." - [33]
• "Sheesh,like I've said when I first was introduced to your work, you have NO BUSINESS editing in Wikipedia. {Jimmy} Wales, a former options trader, said he considered an academic peer-reviewed site before founding Wikipedia four years ago. Instead, he bet on the wisdom of amateurs, depending on simple ethics like "anyone can edit any page," "a neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- in other words, every fact must be attributed to recognized, ****IMPARTIAL*** sources. " and here's the link - Not just 'notable' but recognized and IMPARTIAL. Got it? Good. " [34]
• "{a section is} coming out until you find some legit IMPARTIAL sources. Sorry, when it comes to left wing versions vs Karl Rove's version, you're gonna lose every time. It's coming out and don't touch it. You've been warned." [35]
• The user in question has begun systematically deleting my comments [36], after I deleted one of his more vicious personal attacks [37],[38],[39]. This behavior on his part is unacceptable, is disrupting Wikipedia, is utterly without relevance to the article content itself, and is escalating. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• The user's behavior (deletion of valid content, revert warring and inability to be civil) has now resulted in protection being applied to the Karl Rove article. He is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• "Don't worry girls...we'll get to the bottom of this. Let the record show that those fighting me over this point are: A) Supporting the use of BIASED AND PARTIAL sources to slam their political enemies. B) Calling Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales a liar at worst or incompetent at best for not contacting CNN and forcing them to retract that mischaracterization of Wikipedia's policies. This issue of Impartiality is a very important one. We've been discussing it all day. It's important that Wik be seen as impartial. All of my opponents in here are advocating FOR BIAS AND PARTIALITY. Jimmy Wales is on record for saying he wants IMPARTIALITY. I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?" [40]
• "Nice try but your days of feigning neutrality while defending Ryan's reprehensible actions yet secretly chiding her to 'give me enough rope to hang myself' are over. You've been exposed...68.40.151.220 06:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (Big Daddy)" [41]
• In this characteristic example of uncivil taunting, BD777 repeats almost word for word the comments made by me as his reply (and in this case, adds them above my post and accuses me of being a 'copycat'), while 'flipping' the accusations made against him onto whomever confronts him (in this case, me):
  • "{RyanFreisling has committed a 7RR violation} Right on this page. She also appears to be reverting sections of the article without discussion. However, I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism although I have a feeling Ryan is somewhat of a copycat in this regard. Big Daddy 04:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "{BigDaddy777 has committed a 5RR violation} I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" [42]
• Disregard for policy and admin input. Despite an admin's careful advice, continued to accuse me of personal attacks and bad faith for my reverts of his outright (unsubstantiated) deletions of entire sections of the article - because I alledgedly 'didn't like his edits'. He did so despite direct admin advice regarding the policies underlying the issue in question:
  • "{...} BigDaddy777 did not give a well thought out rationale for removing the information he's been removing. He said he removed it because Ryan hasn't proven that it's more than an allegation. Unfortunately that's beyond the scope of our purpose here. {...} it's perfectly acceptable -- in general -- to summarize allegations made by a reputable source in a reputable publication. The proper response is not to scrub that information because it's "an unproven allegation," it's to cite another reputable source in a reputable publication that refutes that allegation. Now, that doesn't mean that every allegation should be aired. There is a mandate on fairness and balance that must be satisfied. But "you can't prove this allegation" is not a reason to delete something that's properly sourced, alone. The discussion should be about whether including that allegation (and/or the amount of space it receives) is fair and balanced or not. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)"
  • "Ryan has been previously warned about the false and malicious personal attack of accusing me of vandalism when {s}he doesn't like my edits. Yet she continues to ignore this warning and continue with personal attacks. For example, she JUST wrote 'Your VANDALISM of material you don't agree with, without basis in fact, is unacceptable.' Please take appropriate action." Big Daddy 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC) [43]
• Personal attacks and bullying (all in one post, this time!):
  • "Sorry, the only people who think calling someone a liberal is 'a personal attack'...are liberals! lol! Now, if I were to call you a 'deranged libereral fruitcake' or 'brain-dead left wing sychophant' that would be a personal attack. But sorry, hide from who you are as you wish, neither labeling someone a liberal or conservative are considered personal attacks. Unless of course you are not a liberal in which case I will withdraw the label. You are a liberal though...aren't you?"
  • "And I must ignore the rest of your huffing and puffing bloviating except to remind you that there's currently a sale on all your favorite hypertension medication at drugstore.com"
  • "{...} no incident, no matter how crucial a role it plays in your liberal religion Rove-hating dogma, can be put into wikipedia {...}"
  • "But, I have bad news for you Rove haters {...}"
  • "That {...} has no purpose being mentioned here EXCEPT as an UNCIVIL smear."
  • "whoever HAD been keeping an eye on this story...and whoever KEEPS allowing these 'Watergate protege' smears to be put back in...has been found to be derelict in their duty." Big Daddy 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC) [44]
• More items, added by Paul Klenk to the 'improved behavior' section, which I feel accurately show 'disputed behavior' better than any purported improvement. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [45] 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."
  • [46] "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"
  • [47] "In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol!"
  • [48] "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."
  • [49] "{in response to a mention of a revert (which was clearly signed)} Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know.
  • [50] "In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts"
  • [51] "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"
• "I'm pretty sure this is user Hippocrite" [52]
• More hyperbole and misstatement of policy [53],[54]:
  • "Actually it's more probably baseless speculation on your part to conclude that he was misquoted with ZERO proof (like a retraction or request for one) to back it up"
  • "The media's patently obvious desire to get Bush/Rove at all costs needs to be addressed. It may turn out that the media is vindicated. Perhaps not. But to suggest that strong anti-Bush sentiment in the mainstream media is not coloring the way this story is presented is laughable."
  • "do you really want to call Jimmy Wales a liar (for promoting Wik as a place where impartial sources are de rigeur when they in actuality are not. Or incompetent for not forcing CNN to correct this 'misrepresentation'?"
  • "That one person is a stand up comic and reporter who is married to a hard core Clintonista. We need MUCH more than that. Like I said, we'll probably get confirmation but this ridiculous rush to judgement has no business in this article. Be patient out there."
  • "the Rove despisers might be disappointed with what starts getting included in this article. Think about it. Ps I'm merely asking for fairness. Why is that provoked so much controversy?"
  • "all this controversy seemed to have started when I came in and began questioning the blatant leftward tilt in this article. A characterization which I don't believe anyone has seriously challenged. You write as if you are the 'rules expert' and no one else 'gets it.'"
  • "I also know that people with an agenda can use the rules to hammer someone with whom they disagree whilst ignoring the same or worse violations from those with whom they do agree. I have personally been a victim of such a double standard."
  • "if everyone agrees that sources do not have to be impartial then I think we have a concensus until Jimmy Wales comments are clarified...I also think this means we have a lot of work to do on this article to bring some semblance of balance"
• More [55]:
  • "I haven't "made a big deal" about your comments. I have, however, refuted them. What else can you possibly expect when you start making such inflammatory statements? If you don't want to engage in a tangential discussion, then don't make tangential comments that only serve to inflame people"
  • "I appreciate your comments and understand your sentiment, but I maintain it was a thuggish display"
  • "I'm not sure why you and Ryan are making a big deal about my characterization"
• In response to my addition of new content for addition following the unprotection of the Karl_Rove article [56]
  • "So what's the rush to bring in Karl Rove into all of this? Hmmmm...
  • "Nice try. But your ellipses don't connect Rove to this anymore than the truth. If the Washington Post ID's their source as Rove, it MIGHT be relevant. Otherwise, no dice. The onus is not on me to disprove this potential smear but for you to prove it. But it's still WAY too early to tell much of anything about Katrina other than the busses that could have been used to evacuate were left underwater by Mayor Nagin (but I'm sure Karl Rove hid the keychain:) And sorry, Huffington's blog posts are utterly useless when attempting to discern the truth...Utterly. Big Daddy (on the road)" [57]
  • "To minimize that disrespectful attack on McCllelan {the White House Press briefing detailed [User:RyanFreisling/McClellanPressConference here]} as merely 'tough questioning' is disingenous. I know my history. No one...no one parsed words more than Clinton's press secretary Mike Mike McCurry during the height of the Lewinsky scandal. Yet, the press corps never even came close to the level of attack that they did that fateful day on McClellan."
  • "The Katrina connection is invalid until the Washington Post who got the information, reveals who told made this honest mistake. The onus is on the claimant. The defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Therefore this information has NO place in an article already filled to the gills with partial, slanderous, unproven and downright cheezy inneundo."
• Accusing the accuser: "In case anyone is wondering who's responsible for escalating the incivil and personal attacks here, just read above. Both of her comments have been reported." [58]
• Unwillingness to accept good-faith apology, and continuing to flip the accusations against her onto her accuser without responding to the accusation:
  • "If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize - but in my view, that was an accurate description of your prior post, in which you did exactly as I said. Again, if you took it personal attack, I apologize. I did not, however, intend it as one - and I do believe it to be a factual summary of your conduct, currently under RfC." -- RyanFreisling @ 20:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "That's not what she just wrote on the Karl Rove page. {...} Kate?? I am not responding with anything back. One thing I've learned it to report not retort and that's what I'm doing. But if I don't get any justice, then what am I supposed to do. Is it acceptable to call someone with whom you disagree a TROLL on wikipedia? And is it something you're gonna just characterize as Ryan being 'naughty' as you have in the past and just let go? How many times does one have to endure personal attacks before one gets a remedy? And please don't suggest this is 'us two going at it again.' It is not. I have refrained and have focused on the facts at hand. Sure, we disagree. And I could have accused her of everything she's accusing me. But I am taking the high road. Just because one disagrees that doesn't mean they should be attacked like this, does it? Big Daddy (on the road.)" [59]
• When receiving advice he does not agree with from an admin (regarding his request to have that admin file an RfC in my name), he levels attacks at that admin:
  • "You have 1,000 pages on your watchlist but enough time to pick a silly fight over my characterization of the WH Press Corps. Enough time to tell Ryan to give me enough rope to 'hang myself', enough time to accuse me of 'gaming the system', enough time to advocate for Ryan when she asked for your help (even though she instigated the incident by deleting my talk comments), but not enough time to help out someone brand new against the personal attacks of someone you directly admonished? If I didn't know any better, I'd...well never mind. I'll think I'll find someone who actually thinks civility is worth defending at Wikipedia. Big Daddy (on the road.)" [60]
• "Now if that doesn't capture what's at the heart of what's wrong here, nothing does. Here you have an administrator looking at this total sliming of Karl Rove. This toxic waste dump of every unsubstantiated trashy paranoid rumor and fantasy the most strident of Karl Rove haters could conjure up each assigned it's very own paragraph and she ADMITS that I am the primary person with the problem with it. Truth be told, administratior Kate, with maybe one or two exceptions, I'm the ONLY one who has fought to clean up this cesspool of hate masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Now what does that say about the current state of editing and administrating at Wik if apparently NO ONE ELSE is willing to admit what a slimefest this article has become and that editor after editor trump up some phoney baloney straining at the gnat charge to indict me as a cover for their abject hatred of what I'm trying to do here at Wik? Wow! This is really revelatory."[61]
• "Crazy, I know. So that means, even if we ARE allowed to use impartial sources, we shouldn't unless they help bring balance. Got that? Balance. The article is NOT balanced. If anyone does not see that, they need to resign from editing administrating or whatever and take a job with their favorite political advocacy group."[62]
• "Now, if the rove-haters here are allowed in the short term to continue to trash dump, I'll just counter their venomous poison with equally as impartial sources from the other side of the spectrum to balance it. I've already got a stash and am adding to it. But, ultimately Wik will be free from this sort of cheap shot character assassaination articles. Be it Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay or any other left wing bogeyman, you are just not gonna be able to come here and turn Wik into metafilter meets democracy now."[63]
• "I think this evidence makes it clear to all reasonable and objective people that, if one wanted to issue an RfC for the reasons you've ostensibly stated (instead of the real reason which is as a vindictive retaliatory attempt at silencing someone whom you feel endangers the liberal hegemony on Wik) then you and Ryan would be the first in line... Big Daddy (coming home soon) "[64]
• "Unless, of course, one's irrational hatred of Karl Rove procludes them from acknowldging that. If that happens to be the case (for any contributing edior) then, as a friendly suggestion, I'd strongly suggest recusing yourself from this and every other article where you find dispassionate objectivity a problem for you."[65]
• "Ps I will also point out that Mr. Wales said "sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing." Therefore the litany of irrelevant and lopsided 'sources' defending the Rove 'McCain push poll' incident (al franken book reviews, John Kerry for President editorials etc) has officially been rejected. In the past, not only was my counsel that we handle sources with care rejected, but I believe my efforts to make sure we at least 'qualify' these biaseds sources with caveats was also reversed. Those days, thanks to this clarifiying edict from Jimmy Wales, are over. But, I want to urge those on the other side not to lose hope. You can always go to democratic undergound or daily kos and spew your anti-Rove paranoid hatred. Just not in Wikipedia... Big Daddy (coming home today)"[66]
• "(Wow! And I thought Hippocrite only stalked me!) Ps Kizzle, it seems I greatly underestimated your troubled history on Wikipedia as well. For those unaware, just read this very talk page and follow the links. It's a tawdry history filled with repeated accusations and warnings from administrators and users alike. Big Daddy 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)" [67]
• "Allow me to be clearer. That is a false charge and a continuation of poisonous comments you've made about or to me under the guise of breaking some rule that I did not break. To suggest that I'm disrupting Wikipedia because I want to eliminate bias is so laughable as to not dignify a comment. Like I said. I'd be careful with the hate. You're not fooling anyone just because you couch it in terms you think are not personal attacks. It's also quite obvious that you need to take a break from this page. Emotional outbursts resulting in actually TITLING sections 'Screw it!' indicate an unhealthy emotional attachement that procludes objective evaluation. Using that kind of language is both unprofessional and unhelpful. As are your continued personal attacks on my efforts to bring balance to this article and many more articles found in Wikipedia. Big Daddy 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)" [68]
• "You both have this game figured out. Too bad I discovered it. I note that this user (and there are surely more which will be uncovered) was also a conservative. So Kizzle who has been warned by administrators and editors throughout his tenure here for a variety of violations plays the good guy 'just trying to help.' While Hippocrite, exhibiting almost the same identical pattern in case after case, falsely accuses conservatives of a variety of rules violations. It's eerily uncanny how Hippocrite smeared others before me in virtually the same fashion. Sorry guys, the gigs up. I've got WAY too much info on how you've subverted wikipedia to make it your little POV paradise. And half of what I got, I'm holding onto until time and place suggests it's appropo. I have to say though that hippocrite calling the FOUNDER of Wikipedia, just another editor takes the cake. I knew from the very beginning of this farce that, if I just waited long enough, you guys would overplay your hand. But I had no idea just how absurdly you would. Big Daddy 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [69]
• "Everything else is just poor loser sour grapes which, rather than 'the mark of Rove' is the real mark in all these cases. Be it John McCain, John Kerry, or this guy in Texas, the list goes on and on. It's always some LOSER candidate's supporters who wants to BLAME Rove for their loss instead of just looking in the mirror. And Wikipedia is NOT gonna be used as a dumping ground for their vindictive retaliation. (Not against Karl Rove and not against me either :) Big Daddy 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [70]
• "Don't revert my deletion. This is your first warning. It's coming out. Big Daddy 16:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [71]
• "You are in violation of Wikipedia rules and will be reported. You do not have unilateral authority to decide what stays and what goes. If you would have followed rules, you would have found if a consensus feels that this slime belongs in here. Big Daddy 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [72]
• "Sorry, it's out of your hands now. Your violation of the 3rr rule is for others to adjudicate. Big Daddy 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [73]
• "He was NOT a moral leader in Korea nor did he claim to be. And his testimony is NOT about being dredged up from the bottom of society. He was the son of a US senator for goodness sake. It has NO context with respect to his conversion. And it should be obvious to all what's really going on here. Another conservative. Another slimejob. When will it stop? Big Daddy 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)" [74]
• "You see! I told you that the whole 'Bill Maher sex thing' was just there to feed the fantasies of self-acknowledged Coulter-haters. It's coming out.Big Daddy 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)" [75]
• "It's better because it eliminated the cheezy 'pretend sex' line that's useless and only feeds the ann-haters already frenzied antipathy (see above for a user comment that illustrates this perfectly.)" [76]
• "Wow! That post referncing me sounds like a violation of almost every wik principle there is, huh? Big Daddy 09:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)" [77]
• "I don't know how long I will keep it up there (I don't want liberals sifting through our dumpster lol!) but, while it's there, how do you center it? Big Daddy 10:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)" [78]

Evidence of improved behavior after the filing of this RFC

[79]

1. 1. Just to be clear, this RfC does not accuse BigDaddy of bias or violating NPOV but rather documents his violations of Wikipedia:Civility, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. --kizzle 17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. I'd be open to stalling RfC proceedings if you're willing to mentor him, Paul. Thanks for the offering, and I'd be the one to buy the first round :) --kizzle 00:40, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. passage deleted by Gator1 [Care to provide the diffs including your original comment? Regardless, if I attacked you as a person, I apologize. I wouldn't dream of defending my right to personally attack others. --kizzle 19:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)]
      1. But why should we be interested in your views on the minutae of civility on article talk pages at all when you are so obviously willing to make such grossly inflammatory remarks? Ann Coulter, the very object of your unfounded attacks wrote a number one bestselling book on exactly this subject of defaming conservatives, Slander. Shouldn't we look elsewhere than the poster boy for her book for advice on civility? And how does one "assume good faith" after reading such contemptuous bias? And don't you think all conservatives and even many moderates and liberals become angry (as expressed in the discussion sections of articles) when people who act like you unfairly attack those who defend conservative values and ideals simply because they're conservative as well as threaten to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia content (and its reputation) as well? 64.154.26.251 22:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
         1. If you would provide some diffs I'd be happy to talk about it. --kizzle 22:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
         2. They're marked 69, 70, 71, 72. Does your computer work? 64.154.26.251 23:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
         3. Yikes... clearly I hurt your feelings pretty bad. I'm not sure I see your point. I apologized if I personally attacked you. Is this vote against the RfC purely a vendetta gainst me, or are you truly arguing that my comments on Coulter justify other editors hostilities? My guess is the former. --kizzle 23:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
            1. You didn't hurt my feelings; remember I laughed when you tried to insult everybody's intelligence. My point is, as Aristotle said, one of the primary means of persuasion is the character of person making the argument. When there is such a disconnect between your words and your behavior, why should we listen to you talk about civility? "Civility" is in the summary on the RFC listing page. You clearly meant to address the issue. And now you try to cloud the issue by attacking me through the fallacy of false alternatives. Isn't it bad enough for your credibility that you clearly don't practice what what you preach here on the RFC in bold faced type and tend to aggravate disputes in progress? 64.154.26.251 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
               1. Former it is. If you want to continue this discussion, hit me up on my talk. --kizzle 00:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
            2. LOL. It was YOU who challenged my account (and now we see not in good faith, but in order to gain leveridge to contemptuously dismiss it) I didn't invite you here. So since your last response was an accusation, let me just ask our readers this: Who is more likely to be engaging in a vendetta, an ordinary person like me who naturally resents the ethical opportunism of someone insisting that someone else live up to standards that the first someone doesn't adhere to, or that first someone doing the insisting? 64.154.26.251 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
               1. I barely understood a word you just said. Regardless, take your vendetta to my talk page. --kizzle 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
            3. Uh, Kizzle, This is YOUR Request for Comment. You asked ME to come here. So I make my comment and you examine it for the purpose of trying to pick a fight, and then can't stand up to scrutiny (evidence you didn't act in good faith in bringing up this RfC, evidence of the ethical opportunism in making an ELEVEN PAGE complaint about the minutiae of civility after showing gross disregard of civility yourself) and call it a vendetta. The only person with a vendetta against Kizzle is Kizzle himself for making him think he could get away with so much shameless behavior. 64.154.26.251 00:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
               1. The funniest thing about your responses is you have yet to discuss any specific pieces of evidence that you feel are "out of context". Instead, you have focused upon me. You have this RfC confused with a non-existant RfC against me. This isn't MY RfC, this is BIGDADDY's RfC. Once again, take your vendetta to my talk page. --kizzle 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this going on too long? Yes. Notice, still no word from BigDaddy -- has he been away from posting? If not, he's not acting in good faith by at least having his say over this. If he says nothing, the issues remain. No one has to put up with his kind of foolish bullshit. Full Stop. For get "motions to suspend," too; Wikipedia does not run according to Roberts Rules of Order. If the RfC does not do it, then perhaps it moves to other venues. I'm mostly an ouside observer of this and we all know "nasty" when we see it, BigDaddy makes the choice to be nasty, no one should have to put up with that here. Calicocat 05:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Calicocat, give him a break, and try not to seem so eager to read a negative motive into his lack of comment here. If you had checked, you would have seen that BigDaddy777 stopped editing 10 hours before Kizzle so graciously made her motion to suspend. Saying, "If not, he's not acting in good faith", is making a big assumption, and your remark about "foolish bullshit" is needlessly nasty.

Why object to a motion to suspend? Shouldn't this RfC be used to help him improve, rather than punish or silence him? Why begrudge him that? Are you hoping it will escalate?

Maybe he's trying to cool off. Maybe he's getting his thoughts together. Maybe he's traveling. I for one am glad that at least one person is not furiously responding to every tiny remark on this website, or making a mad dash to go from talk page to talk page, agressively soliciting comments on him for this RfC. I actually caught an anonymous IP-er with a one-week history doing that last night. I called him on it, and he stopped. It was just plain ugly.

BigDaddy is not the only guilty party in this affair. In the interest of fairness, please try to see that. Let's look forward to a better relationship. If I can do something to effect that, let me know. paul klenk 05:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks. He's had nothing to say here which is no way to deal with it. Why should I "give him a break" after how he's acted? He's the one who brought this on himself and by remaining mute on it, he contibutes naught to resolving the issues. Calicocat 02:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Pointing to the bad behavior of others is not an excuse for ones own bad behavior. I'd be happy to help BD777 write his own user conduct RFCs as soon as he deals with his own behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My recent removal

I have moved all of the threaded discussions, and all of the post-filing behavior sections save Paul's (which I have been accused of vandalism for moving) to the discussion pages. The threaded discussions are in opposition to policy as explained in "discussion". The post-filing behavior sections are poorly formatted and add little probative value, in my mind. As a certifier, I believe I am allowed to move such, as we did not reach agreement about their inclusion in the first place. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's really best not to refactor pages like this, even with the best of intentions. Others can't see, then, how the totally of the issue has developed. Moving things around according to one's thinking is inappropriate, just let it develope and leave a record which an objective third party could benefit from. Calicocat 21:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this particular redacting per-se is good or bad, but the page did have specific instructions on what belonged and what did _not_ belong there. The discussions were certainly muddying the flow of the RfC and making it very confusing to sort out the evidence from the errant discussions. --NightMonkey 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In case of an article we can be bold in editing it, but in a case of dealing with an editor who won't be professional and a good sport, I think it best to leave things alone. If this now moves to mediation or arbitration, that actual history is the best information to put forward.

The point of this RfC?

Hi, all. So, I've signed where I need to sign, and so have many others, except, of course, for the star of this mind-numbing show. So, if there's no real progress made by the existence of this RfC, and the user who triggered it has effectively stalled the process, is this how it ends? How long does this have to go on? I had the impression that repeated user misbehavior on Wikipedia actually had some real consequences, but that doesn't seem to be the case, presently. I seem to recall earlier instances where users were getting banned for much less. This user's ongoing uncivil behavior doesn't really make for fun editing. Is there an RfA in the works? I know many of you have put alot of work into this RfC, and thank you for it. But, am I being too impatient? --NightMonkey 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A request for arbitration will be called for, where he will indeed get banned unless he responds. --Woohookitty 09:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's not stall.

This RFC has been running for rather a long time, and is not achieving any results, based on the fact that new editors are still endorsing kizzle/Hipocrite's position. It is, however, breeding a lot of ill-feeling between certain editors, not including BigDaddy. Whilst I realise that some degree of disagreement will always happen in an RFC, it's gotten to the stage where new RFCs are drawing ever-nearer. I really think that this ought to be drawn to a close as soon as possible, given the overall negative effect its length has had. Move proceedings on to arbitration (I think it's clear that this is not going to be solved by the parties who have attempted to do so, and arbitration therefore seems logical), or close the RFC with the recommendation that BigDaddy follow Wikipedia's guidelines, especially concerning NPOV, CIVIL and AGF. Either way, let's not allow this RFC to degenerate further into a protracted argument with no positive benefits for any that are involved. At least, that's how I feel about it. --Sanguinus 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I basically echo these sentiments. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration request has been accepted and the case has been opened[80]. Mr. Tibbs 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)