Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence

User:Viper_Daimao is a unique user as demonstrated more than enough on his talk page. The sockpuppet witchunt has to stop. It's a distraction, it looks absurd on it's face, and it's just not relevent to the presented pre-RFAr behavior. The sockpuppets have not been used to violate 3rr repeatedly and intentionally, they have not voted. If they do exist, they are harmless. Let it go. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that. Even if BD did use sockpuppets, there are far more serious things to consider than just that. --kizzle 19:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Kizzle, word for word. Jdavidb (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto.Gator1 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree at this point. The back and forth has become more of a distraction than anything else, and I trust the arbitrators to sort everything out on their own. I'm glad editors sought to address the point, but we've probably reached diminishing returns now. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Its the mark of a good troll that they can get people way too mad about things, and leads to overzealous pursuit like the Sockpuppet thing. I think that in the stuff on BD's talk page (just look at any of BD's edits on 10/4) he was actually trying to push people to excesses to support the idea that he was being persecuted. I'm not comfortable putting speculation as 'evidence' though. Windsagio 21:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I disagree. And not for a second do I accept that User:Viper_Daimao is a unique user. The sockpuppets have been used to try to create a false sense of consensus on the Coulter page (and now the Workshop page), and that is why I think they're relevant. They're not as ironclad as diffs signed by BD777, but they're a distinct pattern nonetheless. I agree with Kate that "diminishing returns" have been reached. I'm done presenting the evidence, and I trust the administrators to use it or disregard it as they see fit. Eleemosynary 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Something I think we need to emphasize

I think we need to point out somewhere that even after this arbitration came about, he is STILL being belligerent. In other words, he's not trying to temper his words or make any attempt to collaborate with others. it's mentioned in several places, but I think we need to emphasize it somewhere. Most of this altering of posts thing has come after this process started. --Woohookitty 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Face it...

You tried to build a case against me but didn't have squat. Your only theoretical charge - incivility, can be matched post for post by my very accusers who, using obscenity, repeated harassment and false accusations, are easily just as guilty (to any objective observer) if not FAR more so. Ryan repeatedly accused me on Karl Rove of page 'vandalism' (as thoroughly documented by Paul Klenk) but didn't bring it up once here. Why not? You'd think with every burp and belch I've uttered in the last 30 days documented in 'evidence' Ryan would rush to accuse me of vandalizing the Karl Rove page. So why didn't she? Because it was a false charge. She dared not bring it up.

In fact, RyanFreisling's actions in that instance was a textbook example of true 'trollery' as the apparently troll-obsessed Ryan would put it. She edited my reasonable posts without explanation and then accused me of vandalism to provoke hostility. For the record, that's an accurate definition of a troll. I provide this important information since you guys apparently don't have a clue. (From what I can tell, you think a troll is defined as 'any conservative who tries to edit Wikipedia.' Or is that a sockpuppet? I don't know, you're so all over the board, it's hard to keep up with what you mean anymore.)

So, you had no real evidence other than a rehashing of a laundry list of self-evident truths about liberals I posted that Mr.Tibbs who just MAGICALLY appeared out of nowhere when the witch hunt against me commenced (also pointed out by the astute Paul Klenk ) decides is evidence. And of course, this laughable notion that I have not shown a willingness to collaborate with editors of all stripes is easily refuted with evidence I've collected and documented from both the Ann Coulter and Karl Rove page as recently as this evening.

So here we have these accusers, virtually all of them guilty of FAR MORE PROVABLE incidents of incivility, personal attacks and hostile discourse, not to mention Ryan's DOCUMENTED cases of true trollery, who have nothing legit to bring against me other than some vague 'He's mean. He says we're all a bunch of liberals' charge trying to railroad me out of Wikipedia.

So, to beef up the case, you INVENTED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH this myth of sockpuppetry even going so far as accusing Gator1 or being my sockpuppet and vandalizing both of our user pages.

You had me banned for THREE DAYS which is three times too long IF I was guilty but I was not nor ever have been.

Then you implicate and waste countless hours of several OTHER COMPLETELY INNOCENT users forcing them to defend themselves against OUTRAGEOUS PARANOID DELUSIONAL FANTASIES from eelemosynnary that even the script writers at Matlock would have rejected for being too farfetched.

But, that's just the beginning. One of the 'fair' arbitrators got his hands all bloody with this mess listing IN EVIDENCE a completely bogus list of suspected sockpuppets and was later found to be discussing strategy about this case on eelmosynnary's OWN talk page. Now I know what you mean by 'collaborative effort.' (Not to mention Fred's cheap shot that I might be Ann Coulter, which in the hostile liberal culture that is Wikipedia is tantamount to saying I might be Adolf Hitler. Or, did you mean that as a compliment, Fred?)

Then something strange happens...everyone begins to realize a HORRIBLE mistake was made.

I didn't use sockpuppets.

Those guys in Texas and California or wherever were telling the truth. Even if one did work at Haliburton.

And all those other posters you accused me of being IN THE EVIDENCE PAGE no less- Barneygumble, Leonard Watson, PAGANviking - those were all FALSE allegations too. (Sheesh...You'd think at least ONE of you nuclear physicists would figure out I wouldn't use the name PAGANviking - but I'm sure that elemosynnary has a 'conspiracy theory' to explain that too. lol!) I never have ever used anything but my home comcast account (and a public library when on the road) to post here. Never been inside a Haliburton facility or gotten near one of their computers.

The whole thing was a sham.

Then Fred bauder started doing this kabuki dance. All of a sudden, he' backing off the charges. Saying the results are ambiguous and using other weasel words to cover his rear.

But it was too late. The gig was up.

In your frenzied zeal to rid Wikipedia of me, you framed not only me but AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN innocent users, blocking them and their IP's.

Hippocrite was the first to get it. He realized the whole thing would unravel once people figured out these charges were bogus. He tried to warn you this hysterical story of me being at least six different people (a fable which elemosynnary still ascribes to) 'didn't matter.'

As time marched on and it begin to dawn on you that this house of cards built on quicksand was crumbling around you and in the process you completely smeared an innocent man along with several others, you began to try and DIVERT and DISTRACT from what you had just done.

And in the now completely-out-of-touch-with-reality state of mind you've driven yourselves too...all of this is apparently MY fault.

Think I'm kidding? Read this quote from user:

"Its the mark of a good troll that they can get people way too mad about things, and leads to overzealous pursuit like the Sockpuppet thing"

OK, I get it. I drove you to it. lol!!!

Anyway, it's too late now. It's all been documented and no amount of spin can get the stain out.

Try as you might to censor me, the WHOLE WORLD has seen with their very eyes how in your hateful vengeful zeal you were willing to slander, smear and falsely accuse anybody in your path if they got in the way of destroying my reputation.

I was blocked ON SLANDEROUS CHARGES for three days. Others were blocked FOR NO reason for days. And you think you can just pretend this didn't happen and proceed with your witch hunt business as usual?

Too late now.

Every word you use going forward to spin yourself out of this utterly embarrassing FARCE that you brought down on yourselves will ring as hopelessly convoluted, delusional and absurd as eelemosynnarys hyperbolic stories of how I masterfully orchestrated a multi-state sockpuppet conspiracy.

For shame. For shame. For shame. This is truly a sad day in Wikipedia history. And the worst consequences are surely yet to come...Big Daddy 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Classic. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to load as much pointed trollery at me as you'd like, I'm not playing your game and you won't get your kicks. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Being macho doesn't get you anywhere here. And you aren't going to scare us off or something. All you are doing is adding to your troubles. --Woohookitty 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I made a bet that the FIRST person responding would be the worst offender. I had $100 bucks on Ryanfriesling. Cha Ching! Thanks Ryan! You go girl! Big Daddy 04:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BD! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And you know what? I don't care if you are using sockpuppets. If you think that's the only solid evidence against you, you are mistaken. --Woohookitty 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never been incivil to you. You have been incivil to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Something the arbitrators need to consider

I think a major point to be made here is that BD is actually getting worse, not better, especially in regards to incorrectly deleting and altering posts on his talk page. And even in arbitration, he's acting in bad faith. His posts here are obviously intended to scare his accusers off. I think it says alot to his inability to work with others that arbitration is up against him and basically all he's done is mock the process. He's said that this is a futile attempt by his liberal enemies to stop his "spreading the word" and all of that. He still isn't really taking this process seriously and I think that should be held against him when the time to come to a decision arrives. I'm about to add his mockings to the evidence... --Woohookitty 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I posted them on the evidence page, brain surgeon. Big Daddy 04:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ps I apologize for that last crack. I realize now that you're not a brain surgeon. Big Daddy 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely Agree with Woohookitty. The lenience Wikipedia has thus far shown towards BigDaddy's unconscionable behavior has only served to embolden BigDaddy to make even more vicious personal attacks and to show even less regard for Wikipedia policy. BigDaddy's posts on this very page are proof of this. Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention what happened on mine and his talk pages this evening. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, do tell...Big Daddy 06:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Since I added it to the evidence page, she doesn't need to. --Woohookitty 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No more sockpuppet evidence

We don't need any more. --Woohookitty 07:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what this user meant to say was "We never had any to begin with." But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I was hugely disappointed to read that eelmosynnary was going to stop posting the result of his investigative work. I don't know about you, but I found it simply engrossing. So, I say carry on. At this point, there's still so many more questions than answers...Big Daddy 08:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Closure

Just wondering how much more evidence we need, in addition to BigDaddy's recent demonstrations of machismo on this page and the return of my personal favorite of BigDaddy's goodie bag of personal attacks, "brain surgeon". This is a textbook case of someone who is consistently violating Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF; I believe the time for evidence collection is over and an attempt to reach a decision should be expedited. Every day that goes by, a significant amount of attention that could be put towards articles is instead spent on absorbing BigDaddy's vitriol. --kizzle 19:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I continue to wonder regarding the quality of BD's edits considered by themselves. Is there anything actually wrong with them? Fred Bauder 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding from reading through Karl Rove talk is definitely yes. However, it seems a bit orthogonal to the main complaints of civility and good faith. Are you requesting that such incidents be added into evidence? Derex @ 19:54, 8 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 [1], the Dixon campaign incident [2] and the McCain 'push poll' incident [3], each of which led to revert wars and much trolling on BD's part. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are good and bad (damn you derex for edit conflict). While I have my own personal reservations as to the neutrality of his edits, I don't think I'm a very good judge of such things considering I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But BD has two fundamental misunderstandings of policy that render many of his edits to be detrimental: the types of sources allowed, and the fact that articles do not serve as "precedents" for each other.

BD claims that only impartial sources may be used and cites Jimbo Wales' "edict", as BD refers to it, although the text he refers to does not quote Wales saying as such. He used this example to try and outlaw widespread allegations that Rove was behind the "illegimate black child" push poll against John McCain due to his estimation that Bush's Brain, both a movie and a book, is not impartial (though I cannot see why he believes quoting Karl Rove is an impartial source). As JamesMLane says it best (like always), we shouldn't take an official stance on the matter and accept it as true, but report the allegations if they come from a notable, verifiable source, and attribute it to such a source as per Wikipedia policy. Here's where BD's inability to work with his editors comes to play. We tried to tell him several times that it doesn't matter what he thinks Wales said, he needs to read up on appropriate policy pages such as sourcing, and parts of NPOV. He, in turn, refuses to listen and instead keeps "quoting" Wales over and over.

Most recently, BD proposed the 'Clinton Model', or writing political pages along the same lines as Bill Clinton, of which he intends to apply to many other political pages. He justifies this practice by saying article pages "don't live in a vacuum". We have tried many times to explain to him that no one article sets a precedent for another, yet once again, he stubbornly refuses to dialog in the matter or show us where in policy that one page should set a precedent for another.

Thus, the main problems with BD's edits are that he makes them without concensus and that they are often based upon fundamental misunderstandings of policy. Most importantly, he attacks those who disagree with him as "liberal POV warriors". Also, keep in mind, Fred, NPOV is not the only policy here. WP:AGF and WP:NPA are two official policies that he consistently violates without remorse. --kizzle 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would add to this that the only reason why he isn't making bad faith evidence to articles right now is because he's been distracted by the stuff on his user page. It doesn't take away from what he's done. And I don't believe that we can just ignore the talk page stuff either. What he's done in that realm violates policy as much as what he's done in edits. And it all ties into his inability to collaborate with others, except for fellow conservatives with the same goals that he has. And I would echo kizzle's comments about his continued violations of AGF and NPA as well. And please take this "reform" stuff with a grain of salt. We've been down this road several times. The stuff I mentioned involving him moving posts I made from his talk page to mine was AFTER this so-called "truce". --Woohookitty 02:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Fred's question, BigDaddy's edit's are generally POV, and part of an edit war against the consensus[4], He certainly isn't above the occassional bit of vandalism either[5]. 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"[6]. Here are a few more examples: [7] [8]. Here's one more unexplained paragraph deletion: [9]. Here's one with a threat in the edit summary: [10]. Here's one where he vandalistically deletes an entire section and then calls Someone Else a vandal: [11]. 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 added your comments to the evidence page under my name, Mr. Tibbs. You can move it to under your name if you'd like, but Fred is right...we need that stuff on the evidence page. --Woohookitty 05:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And yes, we need to post evidence of his misbehaving in edits to the evidence page as well. It can't just be his behavior towards editors. --Woohookitty 06:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through and catalogued all of BigDaddy's article edits, see the evidence page. It was actually a lot easier than my attempts at catalogueing all of BigDaddy's personal attacks because of the lesser amount, see BigDaddy's edit count in my section. I found the summaries of these edit war pieces by BigDaddy humorous. [12] [13]. - Mr. Tibbs 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over things, I think theres more than enough evidence now to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these allegations[14] are true. Now can we start moving towards a decision here? - Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Summary

A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles. He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.

He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.

When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .

That about right?

Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Summary

A conservative came in a month ago trying to remove POV from conservative commentators articles. He was immediatly subjected to a barrage of personal attacks beginning with liberal Kizzle's declaration that he was a 'troll' and progressively devolving to the 'highly respected'liberal JamesMLane's outright anti-Semetic Jew-baiting.

He was falsely accused of being AT LEAST six different people and blocked for something he never did.

When he declares a truce against personal attacks, the attacks grow more vicious and really start flying fast and furiously. When he attempts to make a meaningful intelligent well-thought out edit, he is immediately gang-reverted multiple times. This action is defended by two separate administratiors .

That about right?

Ps Thanks. This will be helpful to me down the road :) Big Daddy 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious now

Who's been at fault in all of this all along. I've established that they MADE UP the whole sockpuppet thing which has resulted in the vast majority back pedalling away from those charges with lightning speed.

Fred has CORRECTLY observed that there's NOTHING wrong with my edits. They are all about REMOVING POV primarily by deleting unsubsantiated smears supported primarily from what Jimmy Wales calls 'bad' impartial sources and occasionally balancing a cheap shot against a conservative with their (or their supporters) response. IOW, at this stage of the game, I really don't have my focus on adding material but rather deleting blatantly biased material.

So, there was ZERO sockpuppetry. And all good faith edits. (Again, I'm excluding the first few days I was here before I even knew what a Talk Page was.) There was also the quickly resolved matter of me labelling Eric Alterman 'far left.' I was asked to remove that tag. I countered that the expression 'far right' is frequently used to tag conservatives. It was pointed out that neither tag is correct, so I removed the 'far left' tag from Altermann and the 'far right' tag from the Clinton page. No muss. No fuss. It was handled both professionaly and with aplomb

And, as Fred has said, my edits are fine.

Now, the only thing that remains is these allegations of personal attacks.

But seriously, what could possibly be more of a personal attack then FALSELY accusing me of being a sockpuppet to the point of actually getting me banned for TRIPLE the amount of time as normal? Is that not a personal attack? Is the suggestion that I was pretending to be someone else so I can 'trick' wikipedia not a personal attack since it's now been proven false? Have I ever falsely accused a poster of using sockpupperts? Have I concocted a scenario out of whole cloth that suggested that a user was actually six different posters? The answer is no because I don't traffic in such personal attacks.

But my accusers (at least quite a few of them) do traffic in such outrageous charges. And there's no locker room name calling that comes EVEN CLOSE to the level of animus in the personal attacks that have been brought against me here in this very page regarding sockpuppetry.

BTW, if there's still the SLIGHTEST SHRED OF lingering doubt about my innocence in this sockpuppet scandal, my accusers should feel free to go to the ends of the earth to try and prove these charge using any and all methods possible for as long as they like.)

And, in the less than 24 hours since I called for a truce, how have these folks responded? Well someone again has falsely claimed I used a sockpuppet (this was just posted today.) Someone named qwerty spammed my talk page and I've been the subject of a FLURRY of deeply insulting personal attacks including the fabrication that I changed something on someone's talk page after my truce was proposed. That's simply not true. I posted that truce minutes before I took off for a wedding and have not posted a SINGLE THING up until now.

These deeply personal and outright lies that ALL were posted AFTER I declared a truce include suggestions that I 'vandalized' pages, false claims of policy 'misunderstandings', false claims that I am unable to collaborate, and so on. IOW, the usual venom. And this was AFTER I declared a truce.

Therefore it should be clear that I am not guilty of making personal attacks. Rather I am the subject, as can clearly be seen from the tone and tenor of the posts right here in this section, of a BARRAGE non-stop personal attacks. My so-called 'personal attacks' were only in self-defense to respond. And now I've even called a truce against that.

But, keep in mind, I'm not Jackie Robinson and will not continue to be subjected to these unrelenting dishonest attacks. But for the time being I will simply catalog and allow you Fred and the other arbs to see the personal attacks coming against me even when I don't respond.

I will be continuing to do 2 things:

1) Protecting my user page from unwanted or uninvited posts and or posters that are determined, at my sole discretion, to be trying to cause trouble. I have not nor ever will allow that to happen to my user page.

2) Immediately resume my edits to the Karl Rove talk page as well as Ann Coulter etc. I will apply a FAIR standard, looking at how Bill Clinton, and other controversial democrats are treated and INSISTING the conservatives be accorded the same fairness. Fred and the other arbs are free to look at my conduct on these article talk pages and in fact I would point you to my most recent discussion on the Ann Coulter page as the first of many examples of how I do my business in here.

This case should be immediately dismissed without prejudice with the focus now shifting to finding out how to stop these people from gang-attacking someone because they disagree with them politically (as should now be abundantly clear from their posts here in this section.)

The full weight of Wikipedia authority MUST come down on experienced users like RyanFreisling and elemonsynnary who both either outright accused or were very supportive of the accusations of sockpuppetry by me with NO evidence to back them up and were ultimately proven false even by people that are generally in agreement with them.

We have no claim to say Wikipedia is a CIVIL community if we allow these persistent horrifically unfair and untrue charges to go unpunished. It created a short term McCarthy-like chilling effect in Wikipedia where, once someone was accused of being a sockpuppet of me, NO EVIDENCE was good enough to dissuade the accuser and Admin FVW ILLEGALLY banned me on the basis of this charge with ADMITTEDLY no evidence. This has been a VERY DARK AND SAD EPISODE in Wikipedia history.

To let this go unpunished means we have no community.

I'll go on editing, and I invite all arbs to SCRUTINIZE both my methods and my reasoning for the changes I'll be proposing and ultimately making to the Karl Rove, Ann Coulter page. And I ESPECIALLY invite scrutiny of how those opposing my efforts to eliminate bias argue, respond and, most importantly act, in return.

I know now that a consensus isn't always necessary for making changes. So long as sound judgement and a fair and reasonable explanation is given that I will gladly submit to the arbs for review on the article's talk page, I'm confident that the changes I make, be there consensus or not, will be seen for exactly what they are - A sincere passionate effort to make Wikipedia the most trusted encyclopedia ever by the relentless and ruthless removal of bias and POV that currently belies our most cherished claim to credibility - That Wikipedia is a neutral resource for information. For the short while ahead, when I edit, the whole world will be watching. And that's just the way I want it...Big Daddy 04:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Um. Fred didn't say that there was nothing wrong with your edits. He was wondering if there was actually anything wrong with them. That's 2 totally different things. He was questioning the lack of stuff on your edits on the evidence page. And would you please stop the all caps. It's considered rude to use it that much. --Woohookitty 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And by the way...you don't own your user page! Look here and here. Quote: "Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Talk pages are part of the historical record in Wikipedia, and your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be very careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it makes it look as though you're trying to hide criticism.". So basically, you are declaring yourself "reformed" but at the same time saying that you will continue to violate the norms of Wikipedia by removing and/or altering comments on your talk page. Can't have it both ways. This is not a blog, nor is it a journal or a mirror or anything else. You don't own your user page or your talk page. You have no say over who posts on it and why.

And...the sockpuppet accusations are just one of many, many, many that people have against you. You seem to pick up on one area of discussion and ignore everything else. What? The sockpuppet accusations cancel out all of the...removing posts on talk pages...moving posts to other people's talk pages...reverting valid changes for no reason...removing paragraphs for no given reason and with no explanation in the talk page, etc, etc. I really wish you'd take responsibility for your actions. Even in your attempts to "reconcile", you still don't take responsibility for what you've done. As I said on my talk page, you act like we just made all of this up just to "get" you. As for the sockpuppetry, you opened up that can of worms yourself by threatening to use them. You haven't exactly earned the trust of anyone here. --Woohookitty 05:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Fred didn't say that there was nothing wrong with your edits. He was wondering if there was actually anything wrong with them. That's 2 totally different things" "As for the sockpuppetry, you opened up that can of worms yourself..."

Wow! Like I said, some people just won't let it go. No matter how hard you try to make peace...Big Daddy 13:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate to see a war if that is peace Fred Bauder 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Amen. Well, it may look like war but there's only one side fighting. I never filed an rfa. I never asked an admin to have another user blocked on false charges, I never falsely accused a half dozen people of being sockpuppets, I never filed an injunction to limit people's access to their own user pages and I certainly never attempted to conspire with my fellow Wikipedians to avoid any dialog with a particular editor and blind revert any edits he makes to controversial articles. Those were all acts of war cloaked in the cover that people were just 'concerned. Despite this avalanche of attacks, I unilaterally made the call to declare a truce in the realm of tit for tat insults. That was the ONLY aspect of my posts that an objective observer could have found to be mildly inappropriate. I've noticed that nearly 2 days have come and gone since I called for this truce with not a single one of my attackers offering to join me in this goodwill effort. To the contrary, almost as soon as it was issued, I was immediately jumped with even more desperate sounding attacks. That in itself speaks volumes. I have unambiguously (and unapologetically) stated from the beginning that these attacks have come ONLY because I'm a conservative who wants to remove POV from controversial articles. This has now been confirmed when the usually very careful parser, RyanFreisling, made a huge cataclysmic blunder in her above post. If you read it carefully, what she's really saying is that I'm a vandal because I'm a conservative. I think her Orwellian term for conservative is "disinformative." So I thank Ryan. I couldn't have made that point better if I hired a professional ghostwriter. It just makes what really animates their efforts all the more clearer.Big Daddy 17:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If there was any logic in your above post, I'd respond accordingly. It is 'disinformative' is when you delete an entire episode because it doesn't favor your POV, irrespective of notability. Enjoy your Sunday! -- RyanFreisling @ 17:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please. I wish you'd stop making this into a spy thriller with you as the protagonist (or wait, aren't you Nelson Mandela?), and just recognize that your behavior here has been overly aggressive towards other users, and that you need to read up on Wikpedia policies such as the types of sources allowed, among other things. --kizzle 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The lack of taking responsibility for his actions is my main problem with BD. it's always everyone else's fault. --Woohookitty 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I wrote above that my points were made better than if I hired "a professional ghostwriter." Well, I still haven't hired anybody, but I did find these very enlightening quotes for free on Wikipedia.

1)From Paul Klenk: "Ryan has already admitted to misapplying the word "vandalism" to characterize edits with which she disagrees, as an excuse to revert them."

2) From KateFan: "Capriciously calling an edit you disagree with that was made in good faith vandalism borders on a personal attack."

It should be crystal clear that some of my attackers just don't want to compete in the marketplace of ideas. While I'm willing to research, reason and then write, it seems others will not even consider a certain viewpoint. They instantly tag it as 'vandalism' and revert it as fast as they can type. I don't understand this mindset. Can someone explain what my critics are just so afraid of? Thanks, Big Daddy 13:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, as before, I stand by my comments. Your insistence on repetitive POV-based blankings despite a complete lack of consensus is vandalism. I have not changed my outlook at all, whatever Paul Klenk says. Kate's point is correct. It does border on a personal attack - but in my opinion and in my intent it isn't one, since I'm not calling YOU a vandal. Others have called you a vandal repeatedly, however. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where consensus rules. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to work with others to help rebuild the consensus. That's how this works. That's why these "group reverts" are just enforcing consensus. --Woohookitty 21:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)