User talk:Neetandtidy

Welcome!

Hello, Neetandtidy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Murry1975 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are familar with here but just a little welcome note anyhow. Think of it as a welcome back. Murry1975 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Troubles remedies

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

The high level of your interest in extremely disputed matters leads me to notify you officially of the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom case. If you have any questions about how you might avoid difficulties in the future please let me know. For some inexplicable reason, when a brand-new editor (created 28 March 2012) comes bursting out of the gate into the middle of a fight, we admins tend to take notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You take notice of fuck all it seems to me. For all your observation powers, you've not noticed that I never said I was a new user, I simply came back having retired. And I'd been here this time 5 minutes this time and it was already clear to me what Domer and BJMullen had been up to at the Loch article with what you ridiculously described as attempts at 'consensus' building. It took me another 5 minutes to see that they get up to this sort of thing all over the Troubles area, spending 99% of their time filing reports, making reverts, and generally being uncollaborative dicks. After 15 minutes, I realised just why they get away with it, it's because of laxity like this. So warn away, it hardly carries any weight in the circumnstances. It's down to you that I've not been able to make a single edit yet on the article that Domer and BJMullen have each made a bucket load of reverts on so far. You're a joke if you're claiming to be the enforcer in this area. 21:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The case has now been opened at SPI. Bjmullan (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI response

I hope whoever is in charge of the Wikimedia privacy policy is watching just how little it takes for people to have their private data examined. I'm fucking fuming after reading the 'evidence' in that SPI report. For the record, here's what I would have said, had I been given the chance:

• I am not MickMacNee, nor have I even ever heard of him. It looks like he had issues with BjMullAn or vice versa, but on my short time of knowing him, that's likely going to be a big list, not a small one.
• I was unaware that I was even spelling his name wrong. If anyone really believes a claim like "very few people" would mix up mullEn and MullAn, then send me an email, I've got some money to shift from my Nigerian bank account. If checkusers are believing shit like this to justify poking around people's private data, how did they even get elected? I wouldn't hire a cleaner if they demonstrated this level of gullibility when asked to say, open a door, or give someone an alarm code.
• I swear. So fucking what? Anyone who has an issue with that, go spend a few days at ANI. You'll quickly find that this is not an issue. Wikipedia long since stopped caring about swearing, so I use it where it's justified. And I challenge anyone to spend more than 5 minutes dealing with the likes of BjMullAn and Murry1975 and not start swearing. Any check-user who uses this as a justification to investigate someone's private date has most definitely over-reached their authority.
• I know policy. So what? I never hid my status as a returnee for a start. Any checkuser who uses this as a justification to investigate someone's private date has really lost the plot. You're practically inviting people to not quote policy in the Troubles area with that mentality, so well done!
• I am a returning user, and I never tried to hide that. Sure I ran some parallel accounts, but they're not my retired account (s?). You want to know what it/they was/were? Well guess what, my answer's the same as it was to Murry1975 - fuck off and don't come back until you have an actual just cause to know that sort of thing. Suffice to say the 'evidence' presented in this SPI and their collective bad faith suspicions aren't it. Any checkuser who entertains SPI's based on that alone to snoop on users, is clearly eroding what is left of the actual principle of AGF. Although I think it actually stopped being treated as a Guideline a long time ago - the leeway the likes of BjMullAn gets to make unfounded accusations against other editors is proof of that. I can't believe he even got away with trying to name me as this MickMacNee guy on ANI without having even filed an SPI, let alone got such a finding, which he hasn't. Oh sure, "He could be wrong". Well, we all know what school of thought that belongs to. And who really believes that he would believe he isn't supposed to do that? If you do, again, about my Nigerian bank account.... How he doesn't get shafted for that blatant abuse is beyond me. Still, admins aren't what they used to be, they're more like gossipy den mothers these days than actual enforcers of policy. I'm still reeling at seeing the tone of conversation between EdJohnston and Domer. Unbelievable. Anyway - any checkuser who used BjMullAn's claims about me having had a prior account, to justify poking around in my private data, has obviously broken policy. Retired users are not barred from returning, it's as simple as that. Murry1975 is clearly a returning user for example, I don't see anyone fishing for any other accounts he's running. Come to think of it, where has BjMullAn ever explained why there is a two year gap between his first and second edits? And where has he ever accounted for the fact that his 3rd edit saw him create an article complete with an infobox? He's clearly also a returning user, and very likely to be running other accounts too it seems to me based on that gap. You'd think that would set some alarms bells over a user so active in reverting/stonewalling people in the Troubles area. But apparently not, apparently they only work for the likes of BjMullAn to eliminate their opponents (and allow him to just continually smear the ones he can't). That's just an interesting take on all sorts of Wikipedia ethics.
• As far as the other parallel accounts goes that the SPI uncovered - I know this prick of a checkuser is going to claim he has found OMFG!!!! SOCKS!!!! and will use that to justify this block (yay, have a barnstar!). But guess fucking what - they're not in fact abusive socks - not according to policy if you read it from a common sense standpoint, the way it is meant to be read, rather than the insanely paranoid way it seems to be interpreted as nowadays by the privacy invaders. I challenge anyone to find them overlapping in any discussion or in any issue. I used this account as the one and only one to talk to BjMullAn or Murry1975 both now and for all time, and if they seriously believe otherwise, they need to take their medication, the poor paranoid souls that they are. And if any scumbag like BjMullAn or Murry1975 tries to use the existence of those parallel accounts to justify this request for an intrusion into my private data after the event, then they're bottom feeding despicable shitbags, who nobody should ever trust in future and should really be avoided in all discussions. That's some great qualities to be encouraging in the Troubles areas, so again, well done! And any check-user who justifies their snooping based on what they uncover after the event, is clearly breaching community trust, and needs to be investigated themselves.

This isn't an unblock request obviously. I clearly don't need one to be able to continue edit. This is just a giant fuck you message to all the lazy admins who are enabling POV pushing in the Troubles area. I don't blame the likes of BjMullAn and Domer for what they are, they're just a product of their warped upbringings as ardent Irish nationalists with bigger victim complexes than the average Liverpool FC fan (and similar inabilities to see any other perspectives of the world except their own), but I do apportion blame to the likes of EdJohnston, the volunteer part time pricks who are supposedly here to prevent their world view's from polluting what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia through the techniques of tag teaming and spouting bullshit and calling it 'consensus building'. You are doing a fucking terrible job policing this area, and anyone with even half a brain can see it. I feel sorry for the stupid cunts who take some of the shit they get into articles as fact. But ultimately, I'm not the one who has to live with that. It's also a giant fuck you to the corrupt checkuser who is effectively enabling the POV pushing too, by narrowing down the field of who won't be automatically be considered a sock, or at least continually smeared as one, in the Troubles area, to practically nobody. leaving it to the already established POV pushers, who are also probably all socks too, if BjMullAn is anything to go by.

I'm willing to AGF that Domer48 is not a sock, or at least wasn't created by one, but he is most definitely not a collaborative good faith editor working for neutrality from a position of mutual respect, as anyone can see just by looking at his activities for about 5 minutes. Try it, you won't find anything remotely compelling that he deserves to be shaping the content of this project. He has all the look about him of a seasoned gamer, and as said, is playing many of the admins like a fiddle. He's also a very accomplished Wikipedia type liar - while he often includes diffs in his diatribes to give them some form of legitimacy, they very rarely match what he's actually saying or alleging. And he is as I speak, sitting out a probation, because it's presumably too hard for him to edit under its conditions, which are not exactly draconian. Not a good sign that. Still, I guess this has probably gone over the head of the likes of EdJohnston, who seem to think that he's going to get away with an admin style of just assuming every new entrant to the field is up to no good. I've not even made a single edit to the Troubles area, and I've not used any sock to deceive either him or Domer in the discussions we had about it. The SPI has not shown me to be any of the people he clearly thought I was. Nor this Factopop bloke either. I certainly wasn't Hackney/Gravy was I? That much was obvious just by reading, not that this is something Domer is good at. Far too stupid for that. Doesn't matter though. Admins don't seem to have even this basic ability either, they seem to operate on his level too. Even though he was talking this shit on an admin's page, he's clearly not going to get blocked for claiming without evidence that I was any of these people though, or for continuing to claim it now that it fits his agenda as he abuses the gullibility of admins like Floquenbeam, who don't even bother to even acquaint themselves as to who the likes of Domer even are, as they do their bidding. To expect action on stuff like that, wrongly assumes a level of competency far beyond the likes of EdJohnston. Infact Ed was the guy who was asking Domer what this was all about! Jesus fucking Christ - if that isn't evidence of just how little independent and informed oversight this area is getting, I don't know what is. What next? Are the intelligent design freaks telling the admins who police that area what's what? Fucking hell. Domer's as happy as a pig in shit now, and in such an environment, technicalities like basic fact and who was who, will always be lost in the sands of time, as he adds me to the very long list of people he apparently all thinks are just one sock stopping him writing The Truth (The Irish Story, 1548-2012). So again, to all the people who enable this shit, well done. Give yourselves a giant pat on the back.

I'll tell you one thing though. Given all of the above, given the way that admins like Ed and this checkuser are profiling new entrants to Troubles, do you honestly think that you're going to actually spot the real people who are intent on doing damage in this area? You've left them very little choice if their goal is to actually fight back against the gamers using their own tactics, fighting them at their own game, rather than actually being neutral Wikipedia-style collaborative and ethical editors. Infact, this is pretty much the advice EdJohnston gave to Gravy/Hackney or whoever it was - if you want to edit alongside Domer, then be more like him. What a fucked up thing to say. If a nationalist Domer fighting a uninionist Domer is your idea of how Wikipedia is supposed to develop, that this is how it writes neutral content, you are some sersiously messed up people. Nobody who edits like Domer should be anywhere near this project. They are a cancer, and you are supposed to be the cure. And you're being about as effective as a cure for cancer so far. Still, we're venturing back into the territory of what we've already established that you clearly don't do very well, even though people were stupid enough to trust you to be admins, so let's just stop there. Bye for now. Neetandtidy (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI response (bulletted)

I just remembered, a lot of people on this site have the attention span of a gnat, so here's the bullet point version of the above (about the sock claims, but still minus a lot though), for the historical record incase someone arrives following links when for example, Domer48 spouts some made up shit he really really believes and wants some admin to act on.

• I was a self admitted returning retiree
• This isn't against policy
• There is no obligation to tell anyone its identity

• I made some edits to Troubles articles (talk pages)
• Based on this:
  • Murry1975 repeatedly called me a sock
  • Domer said I was a sock of Hackney/Gravey/Factopop
  • BjMullAn said I was a sock of Hackney/Gravey/Factopop
  • Hackney/Gravey/Factopop were socks who were all interacting or have interacted with them

Admins never took action a single one of these attempted smears, despite not one of them being willing to file an SPI, as is demanded by policy if you suspect socking

• BjMullAn then this morning claimed I was the banned editor MickMacNee
  • MickMacNee was banned on 4 August 2011
  • I registered yesterday! (28 March 2012)
• He shouted this to everybody at ANI (for what purpose only he knows, showing off perhaps)
• Only then did he file an SPI, as is demanded by policy
• In which he cited some really really shit evidence:
  • only MickMacNee would spell his name mullen not mullan
  • only MickMacNee swears
  • only MickMacNee knows policy (my personal favourite)
  • only MickMacNee has an issue with BjMullAn (second favourite)

• Anyone who knows Wikipedia knows 3 out of those 4 are uncompelling
• Anyone who spends 5 minutes with BjMullAn can also rule out the other one
• Despite this, a trusted user decided this was enough to justify snooping into my private data

• The SPI found:
  • I am not MickMacNee
  • I was using other accounts
  • They are all recent ones (ie none are the admited retired account)
  • None of them are Hackney/Gravey/Factopop
  • None of them were used in the same areas
  • None of them were used for vote stacking/opinion abusing
  • None of them ever spoke to Domer48
  • None of them ever spoke to BjMullAn
  • None of them ever spoke to Murry1975

• I got blocked
• Domer48 had an orgasm
• BjMullAn probably will too

So there you have it. That's what passes for how you deal with socks these days. I hope that expalins whatever bollocks you hear from them in future, and informs you as to how much weight you should give it. What I expect will happen is:

• Domer will continue to claim I am Hackney/Gravey/Factopop/MickMacNee
• BjMullAn probably will also
• Murry1975 will probably just keep aggravating any returning retiree with his suspicions
• Admins will still continue to look the other way (always have, always will it seems)

There's still so much more that's fucked up about this that shines a very bad light on Wikipedia's handling of the Troubles area, but you'll have to read the long version for that, sorry. Neetandtidy (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer's editting of this page

And so Wikipedia's death spiral continues. Domer is now removing my SPI response from this page. Why does he do this? Is he afraid that others might read it? Is he afraid people might learn about how false his frequent claims about others turn out to be? Is he seriously trying to claim I've lied about him when I point out things like he's waiting out his probation in the Troubles area? Why deny what you said with your own mouth Domer? Although I salute your guts in trying and pretend it never happened and your rather odd way of trying to acheive this removal by pretending to the outside world that you were acting as an observer. People are going to find out Domer, you can't stop the truth about what you do from coming out. Talking about yourself in the third person is a very worrying Domer; rather than messing with this page, I suggest you go and get some medical advice, it might be the sign of something wrong with you. Neetandtidy (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

I referred above about how I don't think Domer is a returning user, but BjMullAn cleary is. Is it a coincidence then that both BjMullAn and Domer's sole activity today has been interleaved editting this morning between 6am and 9am, and only consisted of edits relating to me? There's no sign of them going anywhere near any other article anywhere at any time today. Now Domer is back at 6pm and again, his sole activity is to mess with this page. Is BJMullAn going to be along soon too? They can't both just be Irish republican office workers with an obsession about me can they? It's a strange thing to do if they really do have other interests on Wikipedia, yet silencing me seems to have become the number one priority for both of them. I really do wonder why. Have I hit the nail on the head about two users and got their gander up simultaneously, or just the same one? Neetandtidy (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tnxman307

Having just added them on the SPI, Tnxman307 has just reminded me of a few other accounts of mine he blocked a month ago. I never made a fuss about that, but what was funny about it was, as far as I know, nobody had ever asked for a check on those accounts, and they made no controversial edits whatsoever. As above, they never over-lapped with each other, never stacked votes, never deceived anyone (and no Domer/BjMullAn, sorry to dissapoint, but they also never went anywhere near you two or the Troubles, so you strike out again on that accusation). So quite why Tnxman307 chose to interrogate them for their personal data is beyond me, although I'm sure someone from the WMF can ask him when his conduct comes up for review. They review what volunteers are doing right, as regard their privacy policy, yes? I hope so. Perhaps the folks over at Wikipedia Review have a point about him after all. They've got lots of interesting stuff to say about what he gets up to, and now I know why. Neetandtidy (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How I miss those long winded attacks on other editors

Still haven't read How to Win Friends and Influence People yet I see. Mo ainm~Talk 18:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Access Revoked

I think that's quite enough of that. I've removed your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)