User talk:Fynire

Dunmanway Massacre

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dunmanway Massacre. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tomás Mac Curtain. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say, Domer, that the source is unreliable. The addition could only be controversial if it was wrong which you do not say. Find a contrary source and then we can look into it.--Fynire (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin McGartland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. BigDunc 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made points to O Fenian who does not respond. Then you come along and revert in a pack action. So make your point discursively instead of threatening.Fynire (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a threat I am informing you of the consequences of edit warring nothing more. BigDunc 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you enter discussion? You are edit warring not me.

I have made a comment on the talk page. BigDunc 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Dolours Price, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

You have been told enough times: [8] [9] [10] [11].--Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that you are always being blocked I think you are a little optimistic Domer,

but threaten away if it makes you feel big. Perhaps you could find the time to explain what is wrong/original about the pieces I have added. Did the bomb at the Old Bailey fail? It went off. Maybe it didn't kill enough people?Fynire (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Report

I've raised your conduct here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article? --Fynire (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Which article I asked and you did not answer except to threaten blocking? --Fynire (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear to be [12]. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 1 week

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

You are editing contrarily to the provisions of the restrictions of ArbCom/The Troubles, and my action will be noted there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fynire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You do not give sufficient reason for the block for me to respond. The list of crimes presented by Domer is irrelevant and inaccurate. My so-called IP hopping was caused by BT.

Decline reason:

Nonetheless, you still violated restrictions set forth by the Arbitration Committee with regards to edit-warring on articles pertaining to The Troubles, regardless of which IPs you were using. MuZemike 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fynire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

MuZemike - the block was put on by LessHeard vanU so I would have expected him to reply with his reasons. None the less I think it right that you say which particular edits were in violation. Please note that my accusers are, by constantly reverting with no reason given or bureaucratic reasons, edit-warring too. The Tag Team of Domer, O Fenian and Big Dunc take it in turns to revert so they rarely build up three reversions.

Decline reason:

I have several points. First, using an unblock template, such as this one, to request unblocking invites any administrator to review your case, after which they may accept or decline on the merits. The blocking admin typically does not review an unblock request, unless another reviewing admin asks them to take a second look at it - this is specifically to bring uninvolved admins into the situation, to get fresh eyes. On point, I see that you changed the number of dead in the Dunmanway Massacre from 10 to 13 here, and were reverted. Under the terms of the Arbitration Committee's decision (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement), articles relating to The Troubles (which would include Dunmanway Massacre) are restricted to one revert per week. So, this is where you discuss the matter on the talk page (which I see that you attempted), get outside opinions, or otherwise cooperate with other editors to see where consensus lies. Instead, you reverted here a second time, and again here. Even if you were right, a question on which I make no judgement, you did violate the arbcom restriction and were blocked as a result. The block was properly logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. In short, the block is valid and I see no reason to overturn at this time. The conduct of other editors is not material to your conduct, and doesn't factor. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I see you still haven't grasped the fact why you were blocked and listing other editors who you say are not breaking any rules is pointless . BigDunc 11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaming BT for the IP hopping, is nonsence if one reviews this discussion here and also here. Were BT also responcible for your disruptive edits? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop getting paranoid O Fenian (or was it Big Dunc) the edits you complain about are not my doing. BT re-allocate the same IP number to others. But because you work as a team each need only revert once to get me in trouble. --Fynire (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

British Telecom IPs stay the same unless the modem/router or connection is rebooted. You have been caught on this with it being pointed out to you on the discussions above. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case O Fenian (and BT recycles the IP numbers). See the response to Domer's plea to have me blocked: "Could Admin's please address this, as it has been going on from at least January. Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Technically there's nothing to be done, short of semi-protecting all the articles involved. The editor is using a BT Broadband dynamic account, which are impossible to rangeblock (as you can see from the massive range of IP addresses). If there are particular articles that are problematic, WP:RFPP would be the place to request semi-protection. Black Kite 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)"

The 'Troubles' rules say you can only revert once if on probation but I was not on probation as Domer was SO THE BLOCK IS INVALID. --Fynire (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your not using a dynamic account, so cop on! You can use an IP for three days, but as soon as you get blocked it changes? Yeh right. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of account I am using Domer but Black Kite seems to understand that BT creates multiple numbers. Anyway since I registered I haven't been using IP numbers despite your paranoid accusations. --Fynire (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh right!--Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire your talking crap, your deliberately rebooting your modem to get a new IP to evade the blocks. You can also look at the list of IPs and look for ones you used for a few days at a time, then compare that to when you were blocked and your getting a new IP every few hours. It's too much of a coincidence that your IPs just happened to get reassigned so quickly when your blocked, yet other times they stayed the same for at least a day or two.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this alleged mass socking editor (Fynire) not banned? Either he's banned or his name is cleared. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Domer. It isn't real vandalism. Your paranoia is out of control. I can't be accused of being every single Irish person using an IP number. And you know my style - some of these IP plainly do not follow my attempts to neutralise (and broaden) Irish articles that are so often one-sided Republican propaganda. As an enthusiastic POV warrior you know better than most. Raring to go when block lifted. --Fynire (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire, I strongly recommend you 'don't' use IPs anymore & use only your registered account. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP change again by its self?--Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser time. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert the Newry-related amendment to Barrack Buster, Domer, without giving a reason? It seems perfectly all right to me and you ignored the amendment by the same IP user (not me by the way) to Bay of Pigs which also seems perfectly reasonable? And by the way, Domer, how does one change one's IP number. I assume they were decided by your provider?--86.168.90.42 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just added the latest IP to the list, and I'll just ignore the troll above. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

Specifically, attempting to advance your own published theory in an article may be a conflict of interest. O Fenian (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

With all the suspicions being made on usage of multiple IPs. Why has there not been a CU done on Fynire? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay: What's a CU? And I have edited the PEI article. Remember O Fenian et al operate as a tag team on reversions and blocking threats.

A CU is a 'Check-User' for whether an editors has used un-announced 'register accounts' or has been editing while blocked or signed out (using IPs). If we're to meet on public pages, I need assurances that I can trust you. PS: don't forget to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodday: CU seems to be permissible only in extremely serious cases. I came to an agreement with administrator RD252 ?? to register with all previous (unwarranted) complaints about IP hopping then to be taken off the table. Once I registered I have only used Fynire. I can give no other assurances and don't see why I need to. O Fenian et al use any and every bureaucratic device to wear down their 'opponents'. However you can see an example in the Peter Hart article where they were seen off. --Fynire (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me I needed to add balance to that article. As for the rest of your rant, I suggest you save it for next time you try and recruit meatpuppets by whinging to a paper. My point about conflict of interest stands, and it also includes another article which is considerably closer to home. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply remain 'logged in' when editing Wikipedia. That's all we ask, nothing further. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks on a Troubles-related article. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Elonka 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

These comments and edit summaries were disruptive, especially considering that they were already in powderkeg Troubles-related articles.[13][14][15] If you are going to edit in these areas, you need to take special care to edit in a civil and collegial manner, and to keep comments strictly focused on the articles, not on other editors. --Elonka 00:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Elonka - The three comments that you felt justified my blocking were not that severe in the context of the aggressive editing by those I and others usually face in Troubles articles. However I was probably intemperate where I accused O Fenian of 'spouting crap'. (Not that he hasn't frequently been unpleasant to me and worse.) In the instance where I said Sarah777's tactic was 'spiteful' because she abruptly changed the Dunmanway article's title after her use of the word 'massacre' was reverted I was wrong in that description. The sequence of events was that on 28 October at 01.25 she reverted an edit to re-introduce to the article her own use of the word 'massacre'(of Catholics in 1920s Belfast as a possible cause for the Dunmanway massacre of Protestants) in place of ‘killings’. One minute later at 01.26 she retitled the whole article by removing the word ‘massacre’. This was not a spiteful tactic but something else, so I apologise for using that word. The third instance was trivial (and related to the second) in that I simply pointed out that Domer who accused me of a personal attack (i.e. on Sarah) was thin skinned and ‘not averse to personal attacks’ himself. His block log is evidence. I feel that in this context, blocking me for relatively minor remarks and leaving the aggression of so many others alone is inappropriate. However I will refrain from strong responses.}} --Fynire (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, block lifted, welcome back! I checked for autoblocks and didn't see any, but if you still have any trouble editing, just post here and we'll take a look. --Elonka 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hello there, Fynire.Irvine22 (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And good day to you Irvine who ever you are. More work on Dunmanway has been done. --Fynire (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I saw that. More is needed. Irvine22 (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR

You have been reported at WP:AE. O Fenian (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey (re Dunmanway murders)

Best to (also) leave your comments and concerns with User:Angusmclellan so he can advise you how to register them properly and not play into the hands of your opponents. You can and should leave your opinion at the bottom of Talk:McMahon Murders and Arnon Street Massacre, which have been namemove requested by me, so that your opinion will count. I will probably be accused by certain individuals of canvassing, but I am responding to the message you left on my talk page.

I know from experience that if you don't cross every "t" and dot every "i" .... Obviously User:Sarah777's actions were, as usual, outrageous, so how come no one else noticed till I did today, more than a month later? Vigilance is needed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Fynire. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I have blocked you indefinitely. You have exhausted the community's patience in dealing with your copyright violations, and you have shown no sign of a willingness to reform. To appeal you block, you may add {{unblock|your reason here}} below this post. NW (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review your extreme decision taking into account only my actions - that is Fynire's actions - anything else is open to dispute as I am not all those editors I am accused of being. I am being bullied by O fenian and Big Dunc as part of their controlling operation on Irish articles which you may not understand. See Dunmanway article for one. Without researching the issue at length at this point, I understood brief quotation from other authors - a sentence or two did not violate copyright.

So, are you saying you are not the IP editor previously editing this page, this page and lastly this page (IP edits signed with four tildes prior to 25 August)? It seems remarkable that you are carrying on the same edit war on the same pages as that IP editor, and your account was only created a week or so after that editor was banned from editing anonymously? There are several more pages with similar histories also. If you would like me to file a sockpuppet report with ample evidence to prove you are the same editor please say so, otherwise please retract your claim that you are not the same editor previously blocked twice for copyright violations as I do not think being dishonest in this situation will help your case. O Fenian (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC

File away. When I became Fynire the administrators agreed that any previous 'offences' real or imagined were to be wiped clean. NW does not know this not having been directed to it but he should check out all the evidence before his extreme decision. Anyway this is all gaming by O Fenian - well organised but still gaming --Fynire (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"When I became Fynire", who were you before then? Can you provide a list of the IPs you have edited as, or a list of the articles you have edited? Are you denying that you edited as 86.164.137.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 81.158.172.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? O Fenian (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As you well know O Fenian, before registering as Fynire, my computer generated IP numbers at will. I never looked at what they were, Why would I? It was all done automatically despite your accusations to the contrary. --Fynire (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You said above "Please review your extreme decision taking into account only my actions - that is Fynire's actions - anything else is open to dispute as I am not all those editors I am accused of being." Your lengthy and varied disruption which caused you to eventually be banned from editing anonymously was not a factor, only the part of your disruption relating to copyright violations. The block message makes no mention of anything else. So for you to say that "I am not all those editors I am accused of being." is only relevant if you are denying being one or both of the IP addresses I have listed on this talk page. The contributions are there, so are you denying that you were responsible for those edits or not? Bear in mind that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you were responsible for those edits, so I do not recommend lying at this point. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One should add that a user who has been given a fresh start is expected to reform, not carry on the way they were acting before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

O fenian I was not banned from ediitng anonymously so stop distorting the truth. Charging Fynire with the supposed crimes of others defies natural justice so stop the bullying. --Fynire (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

With that many socks I'm not surprised that you now refer to yourself in the third person! --Domer48_'fenian' 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fynire for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)