Case Opened on 14:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs)

Those complaining[edit]

User:Kizzle, User:Derex, User:Paul_Klenk, User:JamesMLane, User:RyanFreisling, User:Hipocrite

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by Kizzle[edit]

User:BigDaddy777 began editing at Wikipedia in the beginning of September, and quickly racked up an incredible amount of personal attacks and WP:AGF / Wikipedia:Civility violations, as evidenced in the evidence section of his current RfC. As a result, a RfC was brought against him to convince him to change his behavior (see the intro paragraphs to the RfC and Hipocrite and my note to BigDaddy on his talk page for the motives behind filing the RfC). BigDaddy refused to comment or apologize for his behavior and completely ignored the RfC's purpose or existence.

However, his edits became slightly more focused upon the content rather than his co-editors, thus I offered to suspend the RfC in order to foster good behavior (as I certainly wouldn't feel happy editing with a pending RfC against me). After this request was made, User:Hipocrite pointed out BigDaddy's continued attack upon other editors. At this point, I offered only to rescind the RfC if he would simply comment on the RfC page something to the effect of "I will not commit personal attacks anymore" or anything along the lines of recognizing that his behavior was not ok. I gave him ample time and kindly requested several times that he respect Wikpedia procedures and comment on his own RfC, but to date he still has refused. Thus, I rescinded the offer and sought community concensus to bring this to RfA.

The problem with BigDaddy's perception of his co-editors can be summarized in his own words, taken from a post made yesterday:

A whole bunch of Left-leaning Editors get together and, drawing from dubious sources and histrionic partisan windbags, string together a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, unfounded rumors and outright fabrications, and post it within the body of articles on conservative public figures they wish to marginalize under the category of 'Controversy' or 'Criticism.' Should someone suggest even the most modest of changes in order to bring the tiniest hint of balance, they fight them tooth and nail on...every...single...point before filing an RfC against them for being too uppity (sometimes they say 'too combative' but it's the same thing.) Finally, when confronted with the treachery of their actions, and exposed to the appropriate way to deal with rumor and innuendos in Wikipedia articles (usually found where the subject is a Democrat) they put their fingers in their ears and start shouting "Na, Na, Na...I can't hear you! Or else they simply demagogue the issue, distort the rules and spirit of Wikipedia to defend the perpetual and endemic on-line character assassinations of conservatives, and applaud one another for their wisdom. Kind of like what just happened here. - [1]

BigDaddy continues to drag discussions down into a left/right war akin to an online discussion forum such as DailyKos or FreeRepublic, and does not listen or respond to any attempts to cite actual Wikipedia policies. His lack of understanding policy in combination with his "my way or the highway" style of editing has significantly dampered the general atmosphere of civil discussions on every page that he has become a part of. But the primary reason why I am bringing this to RfA is his continued silence on his own RfC. Someone who is too stubborn to even acknowledge that other people have a problem with his behavior needs to have real consequences. In fact, BigDaddy recently gave his opinion on the heavily supported RfC against him and this arbitration request:

Actually my footnotes 1 and 2 above pretty much explain your motives. Thus, this rabble-rousing attempt to revive a pathetically overwrought and hysterically shrill dead-as-a-doornail pretend 'problem' which never rose to the level of being dignified by my acknowledgment the first time around, help vindicate my thesis far more eloquently than I ever thought possible. And for that I give you heartfelt thanks.Big Daddy 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) - [2][reply]

From this example, BigDaddy inarguably demonstrates his inability to look at his own behavior, which is the reason behind this arbitration request.

While I would not expect those reviewing this case to sift through each and every comment, here are a few sections which should speak for themselves if one has the time:

• Talk:Karl_Rove#Katrina_Redux
• Talk:Karl_Rove#Resources
• Talk:Ann_Coulter#Most_recent_inclusion
• User_talk:BigDaddy777#Ann_Coulter
• User_talk:BigDaddy777#Arbitration_Requested

This exchange (later modified by BigDaddy) alone merits taking BigDaddy to arbcom for making threats (and emphasizing them with huge red lettering):

This whole thing called a dispute resolution process might seem to be a joking matter to you, but just in case you didn't have your pending arbcom request on your watchlist, it just got accepted by 2 arbcom members. Just a heads-up. --kizzle 02:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You know, I hear these kind of things backfire when they're filed for transparently obvious political reasons. Just a heads-up. Big Daddy 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just checked with an important source. This attempt to silence me from addressing the endemic bias in Wikipedia will backfire. I guarantee it. :) Big Daddy 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the above section was copied exactly as it was coded, the creepy red lettering is BigDaddy's)

Finally (seriously this time), in response to BigDaddy's comment:

The unvarnished truth is that, in every single instance, those wishing to stifle my influence in Wikipedia have a political agenda. It is curious that I get along so well with the conservative editors who have worked with me on various articles. Not one of them has affirmed these charges [emphasis mine]...It's only in political (primarily conservative) commentators columns that I've been maligned and it's only non-conservatives who have done the maligning.

Here's a post right on BigDaddy's own user talk page:

Hi, BigDaddy777. I'm a right-winger, and it is definitely possible to work within consensus here. You need to read up on WP:NPOV. If you don't want to follow the policies, then you need to just leave. But let me promise you that NPOV is a beautiful treaty that does allow for consensus between left-wing, right-wing, and any other positions, and working in this way is very rewarding. But if you don't want to do that, please don't be a troublemaker. Jdavidb 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) - [3][reply]

It is my wish to seek a temporary ban only on political pages for User:BigDaddy777 until he can calm down and learn a proper sense of Wikiquette by editing non-controversial pages first. Once he has done so, I would be the first to welcome him back with a newfound understanding of Wikipedia norms, policies, and etiquette.

Statement by Mr. Tibbs[edit]

Ever since BigDaddy777's very first edit[4], he has subjected Wikipedia to an unrelenting tirade of personal attacks[5], uncivil rhetoric[6] and edit warring[7]. User[8] after User[9] after User[10] has attempted to parley with BigDaddy777 and persuade him to follow Wikipedia's rules, they have all failed[11]. Instead of improving his behavior, BigDaddy has used this new knowledge of Wikipedia policy to try and game the system[12]. BigDaddy has succeeded in baiting other users[13] and forcing several articles into reversion wars, or even page protection while completely ignoring the consensus regarding his extremely POV edits[14]. BigDaddy's behavior is completely unacceptable and needs to be stopped. Given the severity, frequency, and incredibly disruptive nature of BigDaddy's transgressions, I ask that a temporary injunction be made restricting BigDaddy to editing only his UserPages, and pages regarding his own arbitration case until this is settled. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Freisling[edit]

BigDaddy777 is a classic internet troll who communicates by chiding, threatening, blustering and accusations [15]. The citations of examples for his RfC were in the triple digits before the 'disputed behavior after this RfC' section was moved to talk. For a juicy list of cites please see [16]. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eleemosynary[edit]

I concur with the above users. "BigDaddy777" is a particularly vicious troll, who vacillates between full-throated abuse and disruptive attempts to game the system. Check his RFC page, the history of his User Profile page, and the Karl Rove Talk Page for screed upon screed of vitriol and threats (some veiled, and some not). I've asked him several times to respond to his RFC page. He has labelled this "stalking" and has issued the (laughably) ominous "you've been warned" in response. --Eleemosynary 03:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a very recent quote, fresh off his talk page, in which he discusses those Wikipedia editors who take issue with his POV edits:

"LOL! These guys don't get it. If you try to present fairness and balance, they will treat you like Karl Rove who of course is their hate-surrogate for President Bush who in turn is a surrogate for who they ultimately hate most - Jesus. Since I'm just a 3rd generation hate-surrogate target, their bluster is pretty mild. But the closer you go up their food chain, it gets pretty nasty. They harassed Karl Rove's family home, threw a live grenade at President Bush and don't forget what they did to Jesus...Big Daddy Ps I knew all this going in. Have had TONS of experienced with these types of disturbed individuals. And I really hate to toy with them like this, but there's not much you can do with irrational people. Trust me, reason does not work. lol! Big Daddy 08:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)" [17]

I see I've been quoted at length below. I did indeed make each of those statements (not all of which are attacks, btw), but only in response to personal attacks initiated by the subject of this Arbitration, which I will enumerate (upon request) when Arbitration begins. I realize this is no excuse, however. To be accused of "personal attacks" by this particular user is [insert your favorite pot/kettle analogy here]. However, it does seem I am certainly guilty of rising to too much of his troll bait, as a check of the source page for each of those statements will show.Eleemosynary 05:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Derex[edit]

I reluctantly agree that the time has come for arbitration. I only became involved in this controversy long after it had started. I had until recently hoped that BD could be persuaded to edit in a different spirit. I now see little likelihood of that without some relief from this arbitration process. BD has refused to even recognize the RFC, which was endorsed by 18 editors. After the RFC, he to some extent replaced his over-the-top hostility with a less blatantly outrageous, but still obvious and persistent, contempt of other editors. Plenty of people have reached out to him to no avail. Here's my attempt, which, despite BD's civilized response, changed his behavior not a whit. Here's my attempt to warn him that his behaviors, if continued, would likely move other editors to seek relief. Other editors have attempted to sincerely work towards achieving neutral language, taking even his more outrageous suggested language as a baseline. Rather than building on this to achieve a neutral compromise, BD repeatedly insists that this article conform to a (clearly flawed) precedent of some other article, thus ignoring the substantive issues at hand in this article; see Talk:Karl_Rove#Resources. In short, he changed the topic rather than sincerely work together towards a compromise, which seemed to me achievable. BD has repeatedly taken the attitude this is how it's going to be, this is contrary to the spirit of congenial dialogue and consensus here. In short, BD really has been much more disruptive than constructive. He refuses to take seriously any community input on his attitude apart from his edits; he won't even pay it lip service. I don't know what else to do but ask for some kind of intervention. Derex 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightMonkey[edit]

I will second most everything stated by the above users, who have been more affected than myself by BigDaddy777's uncivil and nonconstructive behavior. I was soured on being involved in editing any article he has participated in as soon as he started to rant, rail and crusade against the "liberal POV conspiracy" he feels is endemic to Wikipedia, and only returned within the last week or so to check back in on Karl Rove. I'm glad I decided to quickly "take a break" from caring about this and other similar politically charged articles, which was a good move, now seeing how this has developed. It is sad how quickly one person can so thoroughly distract and dishearten other volunteering Wikipedia editors for such a long time, without anything to really stop them in a timely fashion. I've asked him to stop his name-calling and other personal attacks. I even suggested to him that he just start a blog, where he is free to do as he pleases, which he interpreted as a personal attack. All to no avail. A month of this has been a month too long.

In addition to the ban on editing political articles' associated pages, I request that some ban be placed on his edits of other users' User and Talk pages. He seems to think that he is better able to be "unseen" there and often accuses people who are merely disagreeing with him that they are making personal attacks and/or stalking him, by merely using the tools made available to all Wikipedia users to track edits.

His general readiness to engage in "barroom fight" baiting and Rush Limbaugh-style labeling of other editors is very off-putting, distracting and annoying, and precludes any attempt at consensus and dialog. His pointed absence from the RfC process is not a good sign for improvement. I have a feeling he's even lumped me in with his specious "liberal POV warriors" crowd. Funny, since I'm a Libertarian. ;) Thank you for your time. --NightMonkey 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note on BigDaddy777's quote of me below. While I did indeed say that I would help revert any of his "low quality edits", I must underscore the "low quality" component of my statement. To be clear, what I did not say was that I would revert any high quality edits that he would make. --NightMonkey 09:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woohookitty[edit]

I'll be brief. I want to echo what everyone else has said. In addition, I really like that BD's comments about wanting Wikipedia recruiting conservative editors to contract the liberalism proves that he has no clue what Wikipedia is about. He does not assume good faith, which is the policy here. Instead, he assumes that everyone is attacking him because he's a conservative and everyone here is a liberal...even people like Katefan0 who have shown absolutely no indication of political bias. Wikipedia should not "recruit" anyone. It doesn't work that way. The fact that he thinks that Wikipedia should "recuit conservatives" proves that he doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose, which is to be NPOV. The only efforts he has made to be NPOV have been to use the policy for his own advantage.

In addition, banning Eleemosynary is an entirely separate issue and should not be addressed here. This is about BigDaddy777, not Eleemosynary.

Oh and I haven't seen this mentioned earlier, but BD supresses other viewpoints on his talkpage. [18] More evidence that he doesn't respect other opinions on Wikipedia, which is a requirement for being a NPOV editor. If you can't collaborate, you shouldn't be here. His latest thing seems to be to label people who contradict him as "stalking". [19] has the original comments made by kizzle under "Arbitration requested". --Woohookitty 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an irony here. I'm quite conservative myself, and I find BD's desire that "significant and widespread efforts (should) be launched immediately to actively recruit conservative editors" to be very close to affirmative action, which smacks of state intervention, equals bad thing. I believe that Wikipedia's bias is a product of gravitation rather than prescription, just as newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Guardian - without explicitly forbidding left- and right-wing contributors, respectively - tend to attract such people by a process of positive feedback. Unlike newspapers, which are closed-up, I see Wikipedia as more akin to a daisyworld, and any bias in one direction will eventually rouse the other side to action. In this instance Mr BD is a symptom of this, although he is unfortunately harming his cause. Although he comes across as a blustering wingbag, how go his article contributions? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we're supposed to comment here (sorry Woohoo if I'm stepping on your toes, feel free to delete), but like the RfC goes, he does have some valuable contributions in balancing out bias, his ability to play nice with those around him in addition to several core misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy are the problems. --kizzle 23:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I think it will be helpful for the sake of context, to read about some of my accusers. Most of the following are recent posts from them on various pages of Wikipedia:

Eleemosynary

*Awww... the widdle twoll wants attention. Darn right it's a personal attack. I'll call you what you are, a pathetic troll, until the cows come home, trollboy. Eleemosynary 09:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*Boy, this troll sure is pathetic. ... It seems all he wants to do is demonize those he disagrees with and build an altar of worship to Karl Rove. What a sad individual. Eleemosynary 08:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*You're welcome, Little Baby! There are also some "stalkers" right outside your door in white coats. They have a pleasant little room for you, with soft walls and nice bars on the window so you won't hurt yourself falling out. Go with them, and you can build pretty collages celebrating Karl Rove to your heart's content! LOL! Eleemosynary 08:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*Proof positive! "Little Baby" lives in his own deluded universe, taking breaks from vandalizing Wikipedia only to travel to the drug store for hand lotion so he can better, um, "enjoy" his Ann Coulter picture collection. Duly noted! Eleemosynary 08:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

* He's also blatantly lied to you. He's been multiply reverting edits on the Ann Coulter page all day, under cover of an anonymous address/sockpuppet. Eleemosynary 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (NOTE: This charge is totally untrue and has been denounced by both myself and the person he claims is my sockpuppet. I'm sure someone knowledgable of the inner workings of Wikipedia could easily disprove this charge-bd777.)

*No need to engage this vandal, nor any of his anonymous sockpuppets. Any POV edits of his will be reverted. Eleemosynary 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll endeavor to ignore his nonsense, and just revert his POV edits until Arbitration is concluded. Thanks again for all your hard work. Eleemosynary 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RyanFreisling

Created mirror of my talk page entitled Trollspit[20] to which she adds '(trollspit, for posterity :))'

According to Paul Klenk -

*Ryan made five reverts to Karl Rove in just over 18 hours.This is her pattern: She tries to disguise her reverts by going on the offense, making unfounded accusations of vandalism, POV...I believe each of her accusations, in themselves, assume bad faith.

*I suspect that she uses bullying to scare off editors you disagree with.

*She repeats the word "vandalism" over and over, but none of BigDaddy's edits on the page are vandalism.

* Ryan's continued bullying, elbow-jabbing, and accusations of bad faith while making her 5RRs. She was fueling the war. She was disguising her reverts with her continued accusations

*(Ryan's) false accusations, and (Ryan's) attitude towards BigDaddy, have clearly played a part in the many heated disputes on the Rove talk page.

Woohookitty

* "I'm sure you will now call me a Commie pinko liberal for daring to contradict you."

Kizzle

*Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy...I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll. (Very first comment to me. bd777) --kizzle 16:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

According to user 64.154.26.251, Kizzle and his accomplices have harassed me on the Ann Coulter page. "They reverted all your recent contributions for the sole purpose of imposing a make-believe "sanction" on you unauthorized by any administrator of Wikipedia." 64.154.26.251 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC

User Kizzle is the individual who replaced a photo of President Bush here[21] with a tight close-up photo of a pierced penis. He has fully admitted to deliberately engaging in this vandalism for the expressed purposes of getting banned because he's a self-described 'Wikaholic' and was unable to stop posting of his own accord.

NightMonkey

*I am a fan of debate, and love the challenge it presents. I believe that editing and hashing out discussions on Wikipedia...will help me to... understand the thinking of people I may disagree with, disagree with civility and gain a more well-rounded understanding of various political and social beliefs. --NightMonkey 06:36, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

*"Hey, I have an idea, BD. Why don't you start your own blog? You can rant all day there...A month of this crap is enough. --NightMonkey 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*I was going to copy and paste ... your exhortation on the RfC Talk page to ignore BD's Talk page diatribes and revert BD's low quality edits, ... Personally, I think it is a very good idea. --NightMonkey 08:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

And finally, here are the comments of someone I consider a very wise user that's understood what's been going on from the beginning. (He is frequently harassed too, by the way.)

Gator1

*Now the threats...what a surprise. All of this from an RFC that they said wasn't meant to punish you....now if you don't respond to them or bend to their will and tell them what they want to hear then it "could get much more serious." This IS a joke and will go nowhere as its unfounded and completely unwarranted. Next thing you know, they're going to start threatening me ... Some people just make me sad...Gator1 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Despite a reasonable motion to suspend the RFC, Hipo still wants his pound of flesh and Kizzle, depsite making the motion, quickly reverses himself when he sees Hipo's very rationale response ("no"). It's clear what the whole thing is about. I have removed the RFC page from my watchlist as it is a complete waste of my time. Gator1 02:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

They wanted you to change your behavior...you did and they said they wanted you to respond....you did....and now they'll set the bar higher once again and say you didn't respond with the right words and kiss all their butts ("I'm sorry...I suck...please forgive me.....I'll be good, I promise.....etc").....this is a very familiar pattern...Gator1 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Comments

What the users who have most significantly animated this process have demonstrated most notably is their utter contempt for Wikipedia policies themselves, be it demonstrated through what some would consider pornographic page vandalism, multiple-revert bullying, or incessant personal attacks and stalking.

It was not stubborness that gave me pause in addressing this process. But rather the certain knowing that there's a difference between someone sincerely wanting to help you succeed at Wikipedia, like user ngb for example, and someone just wanting to 'get you' because they don't like you upsetting the status quo.

The unvarnished truth is that, in every single instance, those wishing to stifle my influence in Wikipedia have a political agenda. It is curious that I get along so well with the conservative editors who have worked with me on various articles. Not one of them has affirmed these charges. It's also interesting to observe the acrimony-free manner in which various editors and I have worked on topics as sensitive as religion in the Ann Arbor Michigan article. Surely, if even a tiny percentage of what's alleged about me were true, it would show up in edits where I'm dealing with the sensitive topic of Christianity with non-believers. It's only in political (primarily conservative) commentators columns that I've been maligned and it's only non-conservatives who have done the maligning.

User Paul Klenk has worked long and hard to educate me on how to work within the Wikipedia community. He has also spent an extraordinary (and thankless) amount of time defending me against these charges. But, why? Is he a defender of incivility? Does Paul Klenk champion the right to bully, intimidate and hassle? Or is it that he simply finds it distasteful when a new editor is marginalized by charges his very accusers are guilty of?

It has been said "Hell hath no fury as a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle." In this matter, the moral principle is my alleged disruptive behavior. And yet the key to uncovering the vested interest is found in the 'moral principle' itself. It is my critics interest that articles about conservatives be kept from more careful scrutiny. Thus, any such efforts by someone with my unflinching disdain for bias will always be perceived as disruptive.

---

I am therefore asking that arbitration be ruled in my favor so I can continue the excellent work I have begun. I also ask that user Eleemosynary be banned from Wikipedia for a period of at least one year for engaging in willful, acknowledged and unrepentant personal attacks, a disturbing pattern of stalking, false sock puppet allegations, malicious reverts and a general disdain for anything that comes even remotely close to building community cohesion.

Finally, I propose that significant and widespread efforts be launched immediately to actively recruit conservative editors to work on controversial political topics at Wikipedia. It is my hope that never again will a conservative editor have to endure the brazen hostility and withering gang-partisan attacks that I have withstood without a countervaling support system.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)[edit]

1. Accept Fred Bauder 13:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Accept ➥the Epopt 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Accept. James F. (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

No Personal Attacks[edit]

Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Passed 7-0

NPOV[edit]

Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Passed 7-0

Remove personal attacks[edit]

(CC'd from: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI)

3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [22]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

Passed 7-0

Badgering[edit]

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

Passed 7-0

Common mistakes[edit]

2) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) has, especially since this arbitration process began, violated Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly by altering or removing comments he considers to be critical. Now, he has even created a "banned" list of people that he instantly removes all comments from. This behavior has been exhibited on a daily basis.

Passed 7-0

Banned indefinitely for disruption[edit]

3) BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been banned indefinitely due to disruptive tactics.

Passed 6-0

Alteration of talk page comments[edit]

4) BigDaddy777 has altered talk page comments, removing other people's words and replacing them with other content, but leaving the signatures behind. See, e.g. [23] [24]; see also [25].

Passed 6-0

Banned for modifying other users' comments[edit]

1) BigDaddy777 is banned for 2 months for modifying other user's comments (an abuse of the remove-personal-attacks guideline, whether or not it is in force).

Passed 7-0

Banned for one year for incivility and engaging in personal attacks[edit]

1.1) BigDaddy777 is banned for one year for badgering other users, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Discourtesy_and_personal_attacks_by_BigDaddy777

Passed 6-0

Banned from articles related to American politics[edit]

2) BigDaddy777 is banned indefinitely from editing on topics related to American politics

Passed 7-0

Effect of release from indefinite block[edit]

3) Should BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be released by any administrator from the indefinite block imposed on him the other remedies imposed in this decision shall take effect at that point.

Passed 6-0

Violation of terms[edit]

1) If BigDaddy777 should make a personal attack, or edit an article related to American politics, an admin may ban him for a short time, up to 3 days.

Passed 7-0