I like turtles.
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist ( talk) 16:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I restored your removal of material at Rick Gates because you did not accurately reflect BLP policy. There is no BLP reason not to cover the lawsuits properly, and these are widely reported not some obscure cases. Legacypac ( talk) 07:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer, my conclusion is roughly that you have some confusion about BLP. Your conclusion is that do. I'm certainly still the newbie, but I have been forged in a crucible of fire, a professional writer with now substantial exposure to criminal and civil litigation. You wield the hammer but not so much the pen. I see you righting the rats who think RT is a source, and I 100% agree. We agree about misinformation and sourcing (mostly). It's WP:UNDUE and the historical focus of an encyclopedia where we differ. I do think I am what an editor called a "deletionist" because absolutely I see the historical implications of, say, a criminal conviction totally drowned in the noise of unsubstantiated accusations that are a part of every trial. You defend what no encyclopedia would include. You are perhaps an anti-deletionist. BLP interests me because it's a conservative form of writing. At times I'll leave BLP topics on Wikipedia and wander into some non-human topic... and can feel the standards shift radically. That's fine. I am disturbed that you (a) know person X is noteable for one event, but (b) treat them like a generally noteworthy person. You hold both ideas somehow. I don't. I was quite proud of a recent surge of citation needed in unsubstantiated claims in the Suge Knight page. The same should be said of criminal allegations, and I don't think that's controversial, though I suspect not many have the legal understanding required to make that differentiation. It wouldn't surprise me if my specialized interests bring me to precise conclusions about the nature of conservative writing about legal issues. If mine is your first exposure to these, that could be because I'm on the wrong track, or it could be because you are. You aren't prioritizing finding out, so I won't, either. I intend to continue sharpening my views on these topics by working closely with people who have the time to help. An encyclopedia aspires to boil down what's important to history, and a lot of facts just don't make the cut. This is most critically true in the BLP. Cheers and regards. Mcfnord ( talk) 01:27, December 25, 2018 (UTC)
|
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 08:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Roger Stone. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to keep 24 hours in mind. I've also tried engaging as instructed. Please look on MrX talk where I mistakenly engaged in the first and second instance. I eventually engaged on the subject Talk. (I had misread the rules for these highly controlled pages, and talked to the individual rather than on the subject page.) That editor ignored me and that's a croc, so I entreated a response. All three of you powerful editors have thrown out the good shit, including known subject denials. Quote the fix where an editor tells MrX maybe he could re-add the word "five" rather than trashing the whole lede improvement. Using the built-in link addition tool shouldn't merit a revert. It merits collaboration! I was rather upset and I remember feeling upset. But it's not really a dialogue so far, and of course that's upsetting. You'all can ride my nips long and hard but you aren't writing an encyclopedia when you treat denial claims with skepticism and treat criminal charges with religious reverenece. I just don't buy it. I have now a long history writing Wikipedia about legal scenarios and BLPs. I continue acting in good faith. I'm still new and want to learn here. If you think I'm off somewhere, please do push it back and I'll take like 48 hours to think about it for a while. 192.211.15.242 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
"Process crimes!" lol Mcfnord20:20, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
From one know it all to another, If you don't have the balls to disagree with a modicum of respect, then that proves to me that you have no friends in your miserable life. Try editing being a royal asshole out of your life, then maybe, you'd be a far better person for it. ✌😎 AlienStarChild ( talk) 20:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Pleased to make your acquaintance. Could you find a source for your change to MKL's date of birth? Mcfnord ( talk) 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this and your other comments there, it's not appropriate for you to follow me and engage an editor I'm in dispute with to make congratulatory comments about how supposedly well that editor is doing against me while I'm also in dispute with you. It looks like one of the things I took an editor to WP:ANI for, and that editor was reprimanded. Befriending another editor because you see that the editor is also in dispute with me, and then proceeding to disparage my arguments (especially when that editor has made biting and uncivil arguments as well) is something you should watch yourself on. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Mary Kay Letourneau. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your assertion that this is libelous is unsupported. When you've gained a consensus, then we change the long term existing content. Even if you are correct, which others dispute, she's certainly not libeled more by this remaining a short time more. Its been here for years. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mary Kay Letourneau. This is your final warning for WP:OWN. And I'm not even going to read your screed above, but a quick scan indicates you need to back away from this article. Telling other editors what they should think is ludicrous. People are supposed to have different views. That's what makes Wikipedia work. John from Idegon ( talk) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John from Idegon ( talk) 15:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I see our main disagreement as over WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which you fail to follow. You seem to have created your own extra conservative, outside-our-rules, BLP whitewashing policy. You don't get to do that unopposed. We are defending our policy and you are not following it.
Wikipedia is uncensored in many ways, including our obligation to publish libelous/salacious/false/negative allegations which have been covered by multiple RS. We are uncensored. We do not bury or ignore the fact that such unfortunate things have been covered by the media and RS. We may not like it, but we must do our duty and document it. That applies to Letourneau and Suge Knight. We don't bury history, even (especially!) very public allegations which might be false. Everyone knows the (possibly false) allegations, so we clarify the situation. We literally do it justice, because we know that it's very rare for any single media source to do that. In the process, we often bring justice to people who have been falsely accused and maligned by tabloid media. That's a good thing. Allowing only the tabloid version to be out there isn't fair, and if multiple RS have covered the subject, then we must deal with it.
Fortunately, in the process of documenting often nasty things, we can also provide a better explanation of the allegations and actual facts than most single sources do. They usually cover the subject from just one angle. We show all the notable angles found in RS. To top it off (and you can thank me for this, as it's my addition to the PUBLICFIGURE rule), we MUST include denials when they exist. That's only fair. The denial might well be a self-serving lie (they often are), but we do include it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely, with all your BLP talk, you know that this is WP:POLEMIC. Remove it or be taken to ANI. If you plan to take me to ANI, get on with it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You really fucked up the George Floyd protest page. The maps are all off, citations are incorrect, and there are violations of consensuses on the talk page. The edit you performed you marked as minor, with the incorrect section. I advise you not to continue editing. But if you must, please specify exactly what you are changing, and use the visual editing system to make sure the page is presentable. Anon0098 ( talk) 04:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
As seen at #July 2019, I warned you about WP:POLEMIC before. And now you do this. Remove it, or I will report you at WP:ANI. Or I can ping a diplomatic admin like Girth Summit to intervene. I'm long overdue to report you at WP:ANI anyway...for multiple things. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Girth, the above are just a bunch of misrepresentations from Mcfnord, including his ridiculous claim of how we met. Mcfnord engages in
WP:Tendentious editing and has
WP:Competence issues when it comes to editing BLP topics. This has been made clear by multiple editors, including
Valjean (formerly BullRangifer) and
Zaereth. It can be seen at
#Edits at Mark Lindquist,
#March 2019,
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Mary Kay Letourneau,
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Should the article state that Fualaau was "12 or 13" at the time that Letourneau was sexual with him, or should it choose an age? If choosing an age, which one?,
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#WP:BLPKINDNESS and
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Subject name. In the "12 or 13" discussion, he insisted that we can't report on the far more common "he was age 12" aspect because saying that the boy was 12 is more "titillating." He made some asinine argument about writing conservatively per WP:BLP. As seen in that discussion, I had to turn the matter into an RfC and no one agreed with him. Very recently,
here at the Mary Kay Letourneau talk page, he insisted that we include the name "Mary Katherine Fualaau" in the lead per WP:BLP
MOS:NAME.
Sundayclose and I disagreed. My issues with Mcfnord can be seen in the
#Following me and discussing me on another editor's talk page in a disparaging way section above and in the archives of the Mary Kay Letourneau article.
As for why I have not yet reported Mcfnord at ANI? Multiple reasons apply. One reason is that the issues that occur because of his editing at the Mary Kay Letourneau article are resolved either by myself and others or because he disappears for months before coming back to wreak havoc again. He will sometimes return as an IP first, or make one or more contentious edits as an IP, like he recently did with this IP. The logged-out editing is just more evidence, not something that contributes to me putting off an ANI report. Another reason for my delay in reporting him is that it takes a long time to type up the kind of ANI thread I would need to type up on Mcfnord, and I am often busy with other matters. I don't want the ANI thread to just focus on the Mary Kay Letourneau stuff. If he wants to act like the reason I have not started a thread on him at ANI is because I must be bluffing and have nothing to report, he can think that. It would be a mistake, just like all of the others who lulled themselves into a false sense of security due to thinking that an ANI report started by me about their behavior would be nothing to concern themselves with. I can and do take my time to gather evidence, and never is that collection of evidence right out in the open. Right now, I am concerned about Mcfnord's WP:POLEMIC tactics. His WP:POLEMIC stuff needs to go. He has nothing on me. His WP:POLEMIC posts are nothing but him venting and being passive-aggressive, and it is more evidence for me. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
fascinating mediation) which makes me doubt whether they genuinely want to engage with that. I don't have a magic wand to wave that will blow away all negative feelings, but I remain open to the idea of looking at specific disputes and offer my view of the right approach with regards to policy, if you both want that.
I'm long overdue to report you at WP:ANI anyway...for multiple things.(I make that sentence 5 - not meaning to be pedantic, just want to make sure we're on the same page.) I agree that it's not ideal, and I will address that in my comments to her, but it's a single instance - you mention other occasions, but haven't provided diffs, so I can't comment on whether or not these are routine accusations of the kind discussed in those arbitration principles. Flyer has since then put forward the stuff she's talking about, which we can discuss if you want to.
User:Mcfnord/sandbox4, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcfnord/sandbox4 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcfnord/sandbox4 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 19:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that it looks like a newly created account's first edits reverted a lot of your cleanup edits at the article Heather Marsh (at least, that's what it seems like from a quick glance through the diffs).
I thought I'd give you a heads up, since I don't know enough about Marsh to determine which of the new edits were improvements and which were restoring content with legitimate issues - in case you'd like to take a look or talk it out with the user. Cheers - Whisperjanes ( talk) 02:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I like turtles.
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist ( talk) 16:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I restored your removal of material at Rick Gates because you did not accurately reflect BLP policy. There is no BLP reason not to cover the lawsuits properly, and these are widely reported not some obscure cases. Legacypac ( talk) 07:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer, my conclusion is roughly that you have some confusion about BLP. Your conclusion is that do. I'm certainly still the newbie, but I have been forged in a crucible of fire, a professional writer with now substantial exposure to criminal and civil litigation. You wield the hammer but not so much the pen. I see you righting the rats who think RT is a source, and I 100% agree. We agree about misinformation and sourcing (mostly). It's WP:UNDUE and the historical focus of an encyclopedia where we differ. I do think I am what an editor called a "deletionist" because absolutely I see the historical implications of, say, a criminal conviction totally drowned in the noise of unsubstantiated accusations that are a part of every trial. You defend what no encyclopedia would include. You are perhaps an anti-deletionist. BLP interests me because it's a conservative form of writing. At times I'll leave BLP topics on Wikipedia and wander into some non-human topic... and can feel the standards shift radically. That's fine. I am disturbed that you (a) know person X is noteable for one event, but (b) treat them like a generally noteworthy person. You hold both ideas somehow. I don't. I was quite proud of a recent surge of citation needed in unsubstantiated claims in the Suge Knight page. The same should be said of criminal allegations, and I don't think that's controversial, though I suspect not many have the legal understanding required to make that differentiation. It wouldn't surprise me if my specialized interests bring me to precise conclusions about the nature of conservative writing about legal issues. If mine is your first exposure to these, that could be because I'm on the wrong track, or it could be because you are. You aren't prioritizing finding out, so I won't, either. I intend to continue sharpening my views on these topics by working closely with people who have the time to help. An encyclopedia aspires to boil down what's important to history, and a lot of facts just don't make the cut. This is most critically true in the BLP. Cheers and regards. Mcfnord ( talk) 01:27, December 25, 2018 (UTC)
|
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 08:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Roger Stone. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to keep 24 hours in mind. I've also tried engaging as instructed. Please look on MrX talk where I mistakenly engaged in the first and second instance. I eventually engaged on the subject Talk. (I had misread the rules for these highly controlled pages, and talked to the individual rather than on the subject page.) That editor ignored me and that's a croc, so I entreated a response. All three of you powerful editors have thrown out the good shit, including known subject denials. Quote the fix where an editor tells MrX maybe he could re-add the word "five" rather than trashing the whole lede improvement. Using the built-in link addition tool shouldn't merit a revert. It merits collaboration! I was rather upset and I remember feeling upset. But it's not really a dialogue so far, and of course that's upsetting. You'all can ride my nips long and hard but you aren't writing an encyclopedia when you treat denial claims with skepticism and treat criminal charges with religious reverenece. I just don't buy it. I have now a long history writing Wikipedia about legal scenarios and BLPs. I continue acting in good faith. I'm still new and want to learn here. If you think I'm off somewhere, please do push it back and I'll take like 48 hours to think about it for a while. 192.211.15.242 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
"Process crimes!" lol Mcfnord20:20, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
From one know it all to another, If you don't have the balls to disagree with a modicum of respect, then that proves to me that you have no friends in your miserable life. Try editing being a royal asshole out of your life, then maybe, you'd be a far better person for it. ✌😎 AlienStarChild ( talk) 20:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Pleased to make your acquaintance. Could you find a source for your change to MKL's date of birth? Mcfnord ( talk) 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this and your other comments there, it's not appropriate for you to follow me and engage an editor I'm in dispute with to make congratulatory comments about how supposedly well that editor is doing against me while I'm also in dispute with you. It looks like one of the things I took an editor to WP:ANI for, and that editor was reprimanded. Befriending another editor because you see that the editor is also in dispute with me, and then proceeding to disparage my arguments (especially when that editor has made biting and uncivil arguments as well) is something you should watch yourself on. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Mary Kay Letourneau. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your assertion that this is libelous is unsupported. When you've gained a consensus, then we change the long term existing content. Even if you are correct, which others dispute, she's certainly not libeled more by this remaining a short time more. Its been here for years. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mary Kay Letourneau. This is your final warning for WP:OWN. And I'm not even going to read your screed above, but a quick scan indicates you need to back away from this article. Telling other editors what they should think is ludicrous. People are supposed to have different views. That's what makes Wikipedia work. John from Idegon ( talk) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John from Idegon ( talk) 15:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I see our main disagreement as over WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which you fail to follow. You seem to have created your own extra conservative, outside-our-rules, BLP whitewashing policy. You don't get to do that unopposed. We are defending our policy and you are not following it.
Wikipedia is uncensored in many ways, including our obligation to publish libelous/salacious/false/negative allegations which have been covered by multiple RS. We are uncensored. We do not bury or ignore the fact that such unfortunate things have been covered by the media and RS. We may not like it, but we must do our duty and document it. That applies to Letourneau and Suge Knight. We don't bury history, even (especially!) very public allegations which might be false. Everyone knows the (possibly false) allegations, so we clarify the situation. We literally do it justice, because we know that it's very rare for any single media source to do that. In the process, we often bring justice to people who have been falsely accused and maligned by tabloid media. That's a good thing. Allowing only the tabloid version to be out there isn't fair, and if multiple RS have covered the subject, then we must deal with it.
Fortunately, in the process of documenting often nasty things, we can also provide a better explanation of the allegations and actual facts than most single sources do. They usually cover the subject from just one angle. We show all the notable angles found in RS. To top it off (and you can thank me for this, as it's my addition to the PUBLICFIGURE rule), we MUST include denials when they exist. That's only fair. The denial might well be a self-serving lie (they often are), but we do include it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely, with all your BLP talk, you know that this is WP:POLEMIC. Remove it or be taken to ANI. If you plan to take me to ANI, get on with it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You really fucked up the George Floyd protest page. The maps are all off, citations are incorrect, and there are violations of consensuses on the talk page. The edit you performed you marked as minor, with the incorrect section. I advise you not to continue editing. But if you must, please specify exactly what you are changing, and use the visual editing system to make sure the page is presentable. Anon0098 ( talk) 04:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
As seen at #July 2019, I warned you about WP:POLEMIC before. And now you do this. Remove it, or I will report you at WP:ANI. Or I can ping a diplomatic admin like Girth Summit to intervene. I'm long overdue to report you at WP:ANI anyway...for multiple things. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Girth, the above are just a bunch of misrepresentations from Mcfnord, including his ridiculous claim of how we met. Mcfnord engages in
WP:Tendentious editing and has
WP:Competence issues when it comes to editing BLP topics. This has been made clear by multiple editors, including
Valjean (formerly BullRangifer) and
Zaereth. It can be seen at
#Edits at Mark Lindquist,
#March 2019,
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Mary Kay Letourneau,
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Should the article state that Fualaau was "12 or 13" at the time that Letourneau was sexual with him, or should it choose an age? If choosing an age, which one?,
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#WP:BLPKINDNESS and
Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Subject name. In the "12 or 13" discussion, he insisted that we can't report on the far more common "he was age 12" aspect because saying that the boy was 12 is more "titillating." He made some asinine argument about writing conservatively per WP:BLP. As seen in that discussion, I had to turn the matter into an RfC and no one agreed with him. Very recently,
here at the Mary Kay Letourneau talk page, he insisted that we include the name "Mary Katherine Fualaau" in the lead per WP:BLP
MOS:NAME.
Sundayclose and I disagreed. My issues with Mcfnord can be seen in the
#Following me and discussing me on another editor's talk page in a disparaging way section above and in the archives of the Mary Kay Letourneau article.
As for why I have not yet reported Mcfnord at ANI? Multiple reasons apply. One reason is that the issues that occur because of his editing at the Mary Kay Letourneau article are resolved either by myself and others or because he disappears for months before coming back to wreak havoc again. He will sometimes return as an IP first, or make one or more contentious edits as an IP, like he recently did with this IP. The logged-out editing is just more evidence, not something that contributes to me putting off an ANI report. Another reason for my delay in reporting him is that it takes a long time to type up the kind of ANI thread I would need to type up on Mcfnord, and I am often busy with other matters. I don't want the ANI thread to just focus on the Mary Kay Letourneau stuff. If he wants to act like the reason I have not started a thread on him at ANI is because I must be bluffing and have nothing to report, he can think that. It would be a mistake, just like all of the others who lulled themselves into a false sense of security due to thinking that an ANI report started by me about their behavior would be nothing to concern themselves with. I can and do take my time to gather evidence, and never is that collection of evidence right out in the open. Right now, I am concerned about Mcfnord's WP:POLEMIC tactics. His WP:POLEMIC stuff needs to go. He has nothing on me. His WP:POLEMIC posts are nothing but him venting and being passive-aggressive, and it is more evidence for me. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 03:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
fascinating mediation) which makes me doubt whether they genuinely want to engage with that. I don't have a magic wand to wave that will blow away all negative feelings, but I remain open to the idea of looking at specific disputes and offer my view of the right approach with regards to policy, if you both want that.
I'm long overdue to report you at WP:ANI anyway...for multiple things.(I make that sentence 5 - not meaning to be pedantic, just want to make sure we're on the same page.) I agree that it's not ideal, and I will address that in my comments to her, but it's a single instance - you mention other occasions, but haven't provided diffs, so I can't comment on whether or not these are routine accusations of the kind discussed in those arbitration principles. Flyer has since then put forward the stuff she's talking about, which we can discuss if you want to.
User:Mcfnord/sandbox4, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcfnord/sandbox4 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mcfnord/sandbox4 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 19:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that it looks like a newly created account's first edits reverted a lot of your cleanup edits at the article Heather Marsh (at least, that's what it seems like from a quick glance through the diffs).
I thought I'd give you a heads up, since I don't know enough about Marsh to determine which of the new edits were improvements and which were restoring content with legitimate issues - in case you'd like to take a look or talk it out with the user. Cheers - Whisperjanes ( talk) 02:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)