User:DHeyward/NuclearUmpf/NBGPWS

New
The following is a preservation of User:NuclearUmpf/NBGPWS
 * here:
 * here:
 * here (first edit):
 * here
 * here (first edit)
 * bb (first edit)

Death threat posted to user's page.
I was alerted to an apparent death threat here; User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All

It was removed, but here is the version in history;

It appears to have been posted by a single-purpose account. Can somebody please do a checkuser on this account? I think this sort of thing ought to be taken quite seriously.

Thanks!

BenBurch 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to request a checkuser, WP:RFCU will set you straight. However, checkuser is not for fishing out users, a proper request is to find sock puppets backed up with evidence to support the need for the CU. So I wouldn't bother there.  The user might be in need of indef blocking, but I'm differing that to another admin as I'm not quite sure what to make of the post.   Teke ( talk ) 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. What was the death threat?  Usually a Death Threat includes a threat and all I saw from the diffs was a movie recommendation.  I haven't seen the movie though, but it stars Mel Gibson so pretty mainstream.  Is there some pop culture reference that I'm missing that says "go watch Mel Gibson" is translated to "I'm going to kill you?"  --Tbeatty 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, unwanted UserPage edits (that aren't enforcing policy like copyright or BLP) is entirely unacceptable and a warning or short block is certainly warranted. But this doesn't appear to be a death threat even in the echo chamber.  --Tbeatty 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the issue is the 'think about the fact that payback's a bitch' message implicit in the posting. It's not 'I'm gonna fuck you up', but it IS a dick thing to do. Might not be a death threat, but it is definitely harrassment. ThuranX 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very creative. Not strictly a death threat, but definitely intended as a veiled threat of some sort. ("He doesn't get mad. He gets even."; "Payback's a bitch, ain't it?").  There must be some policy reason to indef an SPA that was created for this sort of nonsense. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the policy is called the WP:IJUSTINDEFBLOCKEDHIM. JoshuaZ 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the one ... I couldn't remember the exact name. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's my favorite policy. Be careful, though.  He might recommend a different movie next time.  "Wizard of Oz"  "I'm going to get you my pretties."  And if has flying monkies, watch out. :) --Tbeatty 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all the admins and editors who showed concern over this threat and helped out. Out of all the numerous admins and editors who contacted me both privately and publicly about this, only one didn't see this obvious threat as a threat, and actually claimed that it was genuine good-faith movie recommendation! This editor ain't stupid either. Hmmmmm. I wonder what his motivation could have been? If it was just animosity .... I'm OK with that. If it was because of some other reason though.... - Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, though, the currency of "death threat" is debased. This was not a credible threat of harm, just an idiot blowing smoke.  Block the idiot, move on. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it wasn't a legit 'death threat' and probably not even a genuine 'threat' - more like an attempt to harrass and intimidate me. Fairness &amp; Accuracy For All 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''



Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

WP:POINT / WP:3RR / WP:VANDAL (possible)

 * 
 * NBGPWS decided to spam a noticeboard that he did not agree with, adding material obviously not in line with the conspiracy theory angle of the noticeboard. He began adding an article on homosexual acts repeatedly as noted above. He was blocked for the behaviour by Luna Santin who cited 3RR violation, disruption and WP:POINT violation. User has since admitted to violating WP:POINT  I and others regarded this incident as vandalism.

WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA

 * "deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" -
 * "Wiki Stalinists" -
 * "Moron" -
 * "WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!" -
 * Note: Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved"
 * ''"There is NO justification to remove the numerous reviews! Acting out in bitterness over the disasterous election results, huh?" -
 * "Back to the 'Conspiracy Theories'! What's with you guys? Thank g_d you have your own club!" -
 * "Wiki RepubliCon Cabal" & "FREEPER SCUM DEATH MERCHANTS !" -
 * Note this dif is provided below for proof of AGF as well.

WP:AGF

 * "so the Wiki RepubliCon Cabal who deleted his entry SOLELY because it reflected VERY badly on the (mostly) Conservatives bloggers, Freepers and Scamdy Posters"

Disruption / Threats

 * "You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP, beatty. A LOT more."
 * Comment repeated
 * "As much as your OWN behavior and justification for it helped you LAST TIME, huh? LOL!"
 * "If I desire your feedback, I'll post to YOUR user page!"
 * User was blocked for the above series of comments by MONGO, stated reason of disruption.
 * "Nuclear, you CAN'T just post your comments at the top, the page goes in time order, repost them where they belong, at or near the bottom of the page. You know better than that! ANI nex time you do it"
 * "You're currently on probation for the exact sort of behavior you're exhibiting here, and did on the Votergate talk page, as well. You might consider changing that behavior before you get banned"
 * This is in response to the below WP:C violation when I asked the user for proof the producers released the movie for download on YouTube.

WP:C

 * 
 * User contended as noted above that producers released the video for public download on YouTube. When asked for proof, none was presented and instead the link was readded.

Spamming

 * " I just discovered you were Zer0Faults too! Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account"
 * User spammed this in about 3 different places, before posting here they spammed it on my talk page twice, purposeful disruption. Dif's of previous posts, note the edit summaries:

Other

 * Accusations:
 * - "HD was NOT produced by HBO. One must question why nuclear insists on repeatedly inserting false info into the article"
 * Note: at no point did I ever write it was.
 * Vote stacking:
 * "ANOTHER politically motivated AfD! ... No wonder they want to delete it." -
 * "The actions of these editors are all laid out right here. Votergate featured Andy Stepehenson who was the subject of a bitter AfD."

WP:NOT

 * Soapbox:
 * "March to CNN for Anti-War Tribunal"
 * Warning given for it -
 * Battleground: Posting of comments from political hotbed forums.
 * 
 * Attempting to import off wiki arguements and general drama into Wikipedia space.

WP:U

 * NBGPWS = NeoConsBegoneProtestWarriorsSuck
 * Proof of acronym -
 * Also uses the name PWS (Protest Warriors Suck) on DemocraticWarrior.com

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:C
 * WP:U
 * WP:VANDAL (possible)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}