User talk:Mcfnord

I like turtles.

Edits at Mark Lindquist
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)


 * I guess so for such a notable person. Mcfnord 17:07, December 19, 2018‎ (UTC)


 * I suggest you take your understandings about massive deletions of properly sourced content from BLPs to the proper notice board (WP:BLP/N) and discuss your ideas with others. If you're right, maybe you can get our BLP policy changed. Right now you seem to be allowing your BLP concerns to override multiple other policies and practices.
 * I've been here since 2003 and have never encountered another editor who thinks like you about this. If we need to improve our policies and practices, then so be it. The way to do that is to get our policies changed, not by edit warring or being in conflict with other editors.
 * I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful and engaged more fully, but life's a bit rough right now, and we're just hoping to have a bit of Xmas without too much more tragedy in our lives. At least we are safe, have food, and some shelter, which is more than many around here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:49, 24 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 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)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people
Doug Weller talk 08:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
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 remember you. I think you tried once to omit subject denials. Same thing he did. The pattern of reverts show a focus on non-encyclopedia writing objectives. Mcfnord 16:52, January 31, 2019‎ (UTC)


 * Mcfnord also violated 1RR rule on Roger Stone: 1, 2, 3. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mcfnord, if I were you, I would self-revert. You have unambiguously violated the article editing restrictions.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See a thread I just initiated about the restrictions at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 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. 19:52, January 31, 2019‎ (UTC)

"Process crimes!" lol Mcfnord20:20, January 31, 2019‎ (UTC)

Mcnford
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)

Following me and discussing me on another editor's talk page in a disparaging way
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)
 * It's unfortunate you overheard. I think you make a number of inappropriate statements, such as a note to the subject saying, "you need to watch your WP:COI." Welcoming? Or days ago, one message from you to another editor included "... you ridiculously refer to as...", "... your typical personal attack garbage", and "stop wasting my time with nonsense." I befriend who I wish, freely, without apologies. But I hope you and I can also be friends soon. Watch yourself! Mcfnord (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Smmary does need to watch her WP:COI. And editors who come at with me an uncivil attitude should not be surprised to get an uncivil response from me in return. I've given you the notice I did for valid reasons. If I see WP:Hounding on your part toward me, to WP:ANI we will go. And, regardless, we will not be friends. Although I have a number of acquaintances and some editors who admire my work, I have very few Wikipedia friends...and for good reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I find her charming. Mcfnord (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. I think it's bonkers that you say I'm hounding. I just want to enjoy you with your other fans! Mcfnord (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that you are hounding me...yet. But you clearly have not read that ANI thread if you think that what you did is fine and dandy. Follow me to more articles, and look for more editors who have disagreed with me, and then start congratulating those editors for disagreeing with me and/or start mocking me on those editors' talk pages, and see what happens. You will hear from my "fans," all right. And do stop patronizing me. I'm not responding to you again in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you have some misappraisals of what various words mean--what conservative prose means, what respect means--and I can't really let you continue getting these wrong on Wikipedia. -Mcfnord (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this edit was garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&type=revision&diff=887810638&oldid=887808279 You trashed "Crime and consequences" as a title, and went with "ruling and sentence"... well, there have been two rulings, and two sentences, and many more consequences than prison. But you really screwed up "Her first child with Fualaau, a daughter, was born in May 1997 while she was awaiting the conclusion of her sentence." No, no, no. She was awaiting sentencing. Apparently you realized "Oh yeah, there was no trial, guess we ought not say there was one." I would treat fixes in a revert like that with great care, and retain what's good, especially the clarity around judge statements at first sentencing. You clearly didn't. And that was even after you and I agreed that the 7.5 year statement by the judge was pretty significant to understanding the topic. So sloppy! Mcfnord (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That edit was total garbage. You throw out good writing. That's among the most insulting patterns I know. Mcfnord (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
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)
 * Even if it's libelous, there is no policy at Wikipedia which forbids the inclusion of properly sourced libelous or unproven accusations. BLP deals with this in slightly different ways for private and public persons. For public persons, if there are several RS, we MUST include the content, along with any denials. It's simply wrong to delete all libelous or unproven claims. They must be dealt with on a case by case basis, and consensus then rules. Your ownership of the article must stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * John from where-ever, you should have concerns about the unconservative, titillating nature of this article and should oppose its presence on this platform. Let's get what you wrote again: "I'm sorry, Mcfnord, but you are beginning to sound like a pedophilia apologist, and we've site banned numerous people for that over the years." You're a creep! And now you, creep, say you're some kind of authority over me? You're trash! And you need to stop making unconservative claims now clearly refuted by evidence.
 * Bullrangifer: If you're committed to the denials, that would place you a slight bit ahead of John from Idegon's miserable understanding of BLP. Your defense of 12 was weak. Even the state denies that claim, and we will cover that. If you'd like to play that way, I'm kinda in. This article without two sentences beginning with "While many sources reported X, Y is true" could be saved but it might be years getting there. I have come some distance from the good old days in December when you insisted theories about Suge Night murdering Biggie and Tupac have a place on this platform. I changed the titling to "Folk theories" and that actually works OK for me. But it's still basically joking to say that's conservative BLP writing. But in this article, the game played here is HIDE THE STUFF WE WANNA HIDE. And that game is gonna end with an explosion. But the game turns some on and they enjoy some kind of triggering feedback loop of outrage or panic. I will cover unconservative claims but evidence, when it refutes these claims, will be presented. The sex-in-car claim is unsupported by evidence, as well as refuted by detailed claims in reliable sources. So if we make the claim, we refute it, as well, with what is apparently an embarassing list: "the police, prosecutor, and judge dispute the claim oft-repeated in the press that they were found having sex in a car, and the news that provided evidence strongly refutes the claim, too". I'm all in! But watch how this uproar vandal mob suppresses those facts, Bullrangifer, and then tell me again about their committment to writing encyclopedias. DOES NOT EXIST. They are committed to UNCONSERVATIVE claims because it titillates them too! And makes them feel, quite mistakenly, that they're exacting justice through the encyclopedia. Mcfnord (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out just how bad their cuts are. They won't ask the verified user what her own name is. They won't accept an article saying "She goes by Mary V now". They just poke a few convoluted sources and SOMEHOW JUST CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. They're reckless and beligerent and now John from Idegon is actually saying "if it's libel it can stay a while longer" what the f does he think conservative writing is? guess what it's writing that goes to lengths to AVOID libel. Mcfnord (talk) 06:18, 21 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John from Idegon (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mcfnord, you really need to disengage and stop the highly emotional ownership behavior. There is no justification for cussing us out and acting belligerent. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are all here on my talk page. John from Idegon, I assert solely that the specific claims you yourself acknowledge may be libelous should be removed until they day a consensus exists. I assert solely that BLPs in particular are subject to conservative writing power that exempts its reverts from the 3RR! I don't claim to own the page. I do watch you revert edits that only contribute better language to the article. You and Flyer22 throw away great edits that are unrelated to factual claims. So sloppy! BullRangifer you know we differ on what a BLP can do. Let's explore "highly emmotional ownership behavior". I assert ownership of Wikipedia, and protect her from salacious, false claims in her BLPs. I am not sure you hold that committment, because you are content to publish folk theories that Suge Night murdered two rap legends. It's a stretch to think Wikipedia should engage in such wild speculation. So we disagree about BLPs. But your CNN contribution is interesting. You brought the "hear from the person" facet to this discussion, which is completely right and I hope you stick around to finalize that prose. I hope you concur with my proposed draft about the non-sex in the car. Just give all the facts, let the reader decide! I've become a BLP commando for many reasons. That's a much longer conversation. I think I get about as angry as I should get when false, salacious claims about a living person appear on this site. Mcfnord (talk) 05:41, 22 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)
 * We may well publish salacious, libelous, false, and negative allegations, but we have the obligation to properly characterize them, especially when attributing them to Wikipedia as the speaker (but also when careful study over time and multiple sources casts doubt on claims, especially salacious claims). I agree that crowdsourcing is powerful, and can be a force for justice. I also believe crowdsourcing can be dishonest and brutal, also with real world consequences. I even believe to some degree there is a war in Wikipedia for the soul of democracy, which obligates us to find that much more caution in our claims. This is the world's encyclopedia. That's an honor and a privilege with real costs when we fail to defend the highest democratic ideals. I think a tabloid story is quite unique in that it calls on each of us to evaluate what unusual roles the typically-reliable press played. We have the benefit of time and perspective to both see unusual outcomes and characterize the patterns. Another editor wrote Right now this article makes strong assertions about the car incident as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's name, yet the current discussion here suggests that our account may not accurately reflect what happened. They continue, Our BLP policy says '...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. (What does that phrase, editorial judgement, mean to you? To me it means the game is up the moment you turn off your discernment.) Finally, I was pretty shook by the full coverage of BLP considerations in this matter: Note that this article affects not only its subject but also Mr. Fualaau, who was a minor at the time, and the child our article claims was conceived in this incident. That's a lot of privacy we sought to violate with our false claims, and I hope you agree that we fail in our mandate when we get such claims wrong. (We also incur legal risk precisely at that moment, especially when we establish real doubt as to the accuracy of (some of) our sources.) I really enjoyed reading "in a sensational story like this the press becomes an echo chamber, repeating lurid details without independent fact checking. So just counting sources is not enough." I've seen counting sources used to defend asserting the most extreme possible accounting, and solely in the voice of this website. So I guess I've been radicalized. That's a lot of wrong judgement to stack up. Almost sorta weaponizing wiki by suspending discernment, or just bending it, you know, a little bit here and there, especially in favor of a less-plausible but sexier account.
 * You know what? This topic doesn't even quote the subject's characterization of the noteworthy acts of her life. Isn't that your contribution to BLP fundamentals? Not even one characterization, despite numerous press accounts quoting and and characterizing her view(s). There are even press accounts that mention how frequently and consistently the subject has provided her own characterization of these events. Yet for some reason, this article quotes other people about the subject's noteworthy acts, but she remains noticeably mute. I thought that insight was your signature contribution to the BLP mindset? I suspect that we could quote fewer "insiders" and just quote her position or response. I'd often rather not cover all the various responses and speculations about motive and characterizations of events made by Uncle Joe and Insider Journalist and Tangential As-seen-on-TV Attorney, but isn't it fundamental that hers, if known, is covered? Cuz it ain't now. Do you have an opinion about that? Why do you think this is the case? And do you think she should be mute in this article pertaining to noteworthy events in her life? Apparently I asked you this on March 22nd as well.
 * I smile when you call my style "extra conservative". Ultimately we must be careful when we speak using Wikipedia's voice, especially when asserting questionable claims as factual ones. We just can't let sloppy or noisy or frenzied or confusing news coverage permanently slip us up or deadlock us. I think editorial judgement is about very measured discernment. That might make it elusive! It could even be that editorial judgement is much less common than people think. Yet we rely on it. Yikes! Mcfnord (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
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)
 * Thanks for bringing your concern to my attention. You've found a (growing) compilation of factual evidence (diffs) on a user subpage, for the purpose of preparing for a dispute resolution process. However, the need to use it in a "timely manner" might refer to an hour or a month, who knows. I've moved the draft work to an offsite location. Let me know if you want the URL. - mcfnord

September 2019
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

George Floyd protests
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)
 * Thanks for rolling back my errors, and thanks for your advice. Mcfnord (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC again
As seen at, 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)
 * I have come to feel excitement when you threaten administrative action. I will present this evidence in an upcoming dispute, or remove them from the site. I promise! Mcfnord (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history here. Mcnford, please can you explain what you intend to do with the content of that sandbox? From a quick look, it does appear to be in breach of WP:POLEMIC, unless you are preparing material that you intend to use in the near future in a dispute resolution channels. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  10:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Mcnford - I see you've edited since I asked this question, but haven't responded. I'd be grateful for a timely answer - either you are planning to use that page for an imminent valid purpose, or you need to ditch it. Please advise, thanks. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good morning. Sorry, I was fetching coffee. But you've got it: imminent valid purpose. Previously, before you arrived, I promised appropriate handling of this regulated information. Indeed, in the message you replied to here, I promise to remove the content if that need fails to materialize in a timely way. Please also note that the link provided by my esteemed colleague above is to a specific draft, which I've since improved with conservative prose. When I do see patterns, and when those patterns become impediments to writing the encyclopedia well, I rely on carefully constructed, well-researched rhetoric to proceed. I do appreciate your urgent insistence that I write a re-statement of my original statement to the complainant, and hope this re-statement does reassure. Also, I do inquire as to whether it's appropriate to threaten administrative action without delivering it, as done here. Can you speak to that? The complainant does it right here: Asserts that I've engaged in acts egregious enough as to be "long overdue" for administrative action. Isn't that an aspersion without evidence? I'm tired of any claim herein about me that is unaccompanied by evidence. I've expressed this to the complainant previously, to no avail. My own approach in this matter is to rely on evidence, which does entail some recordkeeping. If you just lob smack talk, as Flyer22 does here toward me with her assertion that "multiple things" I do are serious harms to the site, there's no need for careful citations. Mcfnord (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that, but it's not very specific - what's your timeline for raising your complaint? With regard to Flyer's indication that she intends to raise a complaint at ANI, I haven't looked through your previous interactions - has this happened before, or is her note above the first time? I wouldn't look kindly on someone repeatedly threatening to do it and never doing it, but if that's what she's planning to do it's not unreasonable of her to let you know in advance that she's planning to do it. As an aside, much of your message comes across to me as being sarcastic. If that wasn't your intention, I apologise, but in a text-only medium, I strongly recommend clear and straightforward statements - say exactly what you mean, don't rely on the reader to infer stuff by reading between the lines. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was sarcastic, perhaps for one solid sentence, but held the view that I had been quite clear. I still hold that view. The timeline is based on emerging issues on two pages, and both are progressing daily. What's the timeline on her administrative complaint? She routinely claims that my activities here are so destructive as to merit formal sanction. She never assembles the evidence. She just repeats the claim. Sometimes she'll throw in a link to her previous unsourced aspersions, a sort of aspersion crowdsourcing. I suppose I'll assemble those incidents in another sandbox, so they're ready for the upcoming administrative scrutiny. Long overdue! Mcfnord (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Flyer's timeline - I haven't discussed it with her, I'm only here because I was pinged above and agreed that the sandbox did seem to be in breach of WP:POLEMIC. As I said before, I haven't been through the history of your dispute, so I have no view on whether one or other person is in the right, but I would be happy to attempt to mediate if you both wanted that. Otherwise, one or other of you should raise a report promptly at a relevant noticeboard.
 * With regard to the sandbox, I think you're saying that you intend to keep adding to it as a situation develops - that doesn't seem to be within the spirit of WP:POLEMIC to me. If you think there is already enough material for a report, then I'd suggest that you compile the diffs and raise it; if you want to keep track of stuff as a situation develops, you might want to do that locally on a file on your computer, or simply record the diffs (without the commentary) in a sandbox. Please consider these approaches. I'm about to go make dinner, but I'll look in again tomorrow. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  18:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think your help could improve collaboration between Flyer22 and myself? Have you worked successfully with her in the past?
 * I will migrate whatever you deem WP:POLEMIC offsite when Flyer22 commits to a timeline for her persistent threat of administrative review "for many things". But it must not be just one thing! Must be many offenses. And if her attempt at sanctions is "long overdue", then my offenses must stretch back in time. Occasionally she has claimed that other people agree with her about me, and I've insisted she collaborate with them on the ANI submission, because I do accept it's a bit of work. I just need commitment to a timeline wherein she stops speaking to me using unsourced aspersions, and instead provides evidence of "many things" over a "long" period that merit sanction of the administrative body.
 * You do see where she makes this claim of a long pattern of destructive editing on my part, and then threatens administrative review. It's her 4th sentence. So stop talking about timelines and whatnot, it's right there. It's also a test of your neutrality: Do you see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS in Sentence 4?
 * If she can do as you suggest, and raise a report promptly at a relevant noticeboard, then it wouldn't be a pattern of unsourced aspersions and toothless threats anymore. I start thinking she just likes to threaten and malign! In my view, Flyer22 persistently uses innuendo and unsourced aspersions--something opposite of conservative prose--on a website where such rhetoric is prohibited per BLP. Pretty steep and serious claims, but isn't it all right there in Sentence 4? I can show at least a half-dozen other instances where she made the same claim and threat. Claims without evidence can't be appropriate behavior toward a living person on Wikipedia. But she simply doesn't deliver the fabled ANI over many things over many months that she claims is merited. Why is she ignoring the damage she says I'm doing? She should stop with the hollow claims and take action. And when she agrees to a timeline for acting on her threat here, and substantiating her claim of "long" damage meriting sanction "for many things", I will act as I've agreed. Promise! But I caution you to consider whether it's more serious to present harmful claims without evidence, as she does here, or present claims with evidence, as I do in my sandbox. I find that pretty fascinating. I'm glad she chose to include the unsupported, maligning claim and toothless threat again. It's among my favorite unsupported aspersion forms Flyer22 is prone to. She is constantly abusing other editors. In fact, that's how I met her. But we can discuss that during our fascinating mediation! Mcfnord (talk) 20:05, 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, , Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281, Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4, Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4 and Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4. 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 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)
 * This appears to be quite entrenched. My thoughts on how to proceed:
 * General comments Flyer suggested that I might intervene; Mcfnord seems to be indicating that they might be willing to engage in that, although they have made what I interpret as another sarcastic comment (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.
 * : Have I worked with Flyer successfully in the past? We've never collaborated directly on an article together as far as I can recall, but we are both active RC patrollers with substantial watchlist overlap, so I know her work in that context, and we have engaged with each other on discussion threads on several article talk pages and noticeboards in the past. I've never had a problem interacting with her, and believe that she is editing in good faith. Does that answer your question?
 * With regard to your comments on aspersions, just so we're clear that we're talking about the same statement of Flyer's, I think you mean 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.
 * With regard to the sandbox and to your report, I don't see why your timeline for anything should be contingent on hers. Stuff like that is only appropriate if you are actively putting together a report that you intend to submit - it's not acceptable to keep it in user space as a means to encourage someone else to do something. I'm going to ask you again to take it offline.
 * : Mcfnord has a point about threatening to report someone at ANI but not doing so: doing that repeatedly could be seen as an attempt to intimidate, or as casting aspersions, and one could interpret your comments above about collecting a bank of evidence as being rather chilling. Can I suggest that we take it as read that Mcfnord now understands that you intend to raise a report, and that next time you feel the need to tell them that, you just go ahead and raise it?
 * That's all I've got for the time being. If either of you want to go ahead and raise your report, please do so. If you want me to comment further on the specifics mentioned above, let me know and I'll read through Flyer's diffs, and any that Mcfnord wants to present. Either way, I expect to see the contents of that sandbox removed immediately, and I don't expect to see either of you making any more threats to raise reports on the other - you both know where you stand in that regard. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for taking some time to write. I was away for some time. If Flyer mentions this particular threat again without followthrough, I'll ping you. That's something. I also know of only one more specific issue on which we disagree. Maybe you could help us resolve that, and then basically I'm done with serious fixes to topics that she parks on. That would be a home run.
 * Here you say you see where she "put forth the stuff she's talking about" which we can discuss "if I want to." Sure. Given her claims and evidence, should I be censured? A claim that a living person is unfit to write on Wikipedia is a bold negative claim she repeats persistently without evidence.
 * Here she claims I make two kinds of inappropriate edits, with zero evidence offered. You could examine my edits over many years, but I doubt you'll see any such pattern.
 * She mentions some friends of hers by name, which is sweet, but people aren't evidence.
 * She cites stuff on this page that looks like a healthy discussion to me. Does it look like that to you? An under-1000 edits editor learning the ropes and paying his dues?
 * She specifies a disagreement we had about age, which I believe should be simply 13, as (1) that's what the court said, (2) that's what the most reliable RS's said, and (3) That's the most conservative claim, a central writing principle of BLP. Reasonable people disagree, but is there cause for administrative action in that discussion (from 2019, but still apparently fresh in her mind), or was it just in good faith, as you put it? (There's a deeper dive in here about BLPKINDNESS that I might wish to discuss in our mediation in the future, and does tie into that "home run" I'd like to hit with us 3 collaborating.)
 * If "nobody" agreed with my view about something on an RfC, is that the substance of a meritorious ANI claim?
 * If we consistently resolve disagreements on the MKL talk page, isn't this admission basically saying there's no cause for an ANI claim?
 * Those edits I made without logging in were when I couldn't find my password for a while. Are those edits cause for censure? (That's one piece of evidence she does provide! Does it support her claims?)
 * If a complicated report to ANI is needed, as she claims, isn't that kind of suspicious? How come there's never any smoking gun?
 * Because it's a Gish_gallop.
 * I think she has learned to game Wikipedia, sometimes with a small group of fans. I keep experiencing each level of blustery opposition, but it always ends up being abusive talk with zero followthrough. Mean, nasty claims, with occasional but unsuccessful attempts at citing evidence.
 * Maybe I just make her deliriously angry and it blinds her and she forgets the evidence in her typing rage.
 * I come here to strengthen my conservative prose skills after 20 years in the technical writing profession. Tomorrow at work I will write claims to Microsoft's worldwide audience, and I won't say a single word I can't prove. Flyer should try it sometime!
 * Flyer is a very senior editor here. Would you say she tries to teach me how to do a better job? Or does she drop bombs like asinine (extremely stupid or foolish), with no evidence? At work tomorrow, should I call my co-worker's claim asinine, even if I think that's true? Is that how I can mentor? In fact, she even seems to not remember what exactly was asinine, saying "some asinine argument". Claims like these require evidence, or must not appear on Wikipedia. Do we get to be nasty if we're vague?
 * Do you think I may be experiencing a persistent pattern of BLP violations unfitting of the Wikipedia website? Should I perhaps start an uber-ANI that enumerates her persistent negative claims about me, typically presented, as presented here, without evidence? She continues claiming I'm unskilled and unacceptable as an editor, without even trying to include evidence. Can I stop this behavior through successful administrative censure? You clearly know more about this than I do. I only learned about ANI because she showed up there to censure me in an effort that ended in a spectacular explosion for her and her friend. Maybe she doesn't want to ANI again cuz she already tried that and failed. Any new ANI would necessarily link to this context.
 * P.S. You said "one could interpret your comments above about collecting a bank of evidence as being rather chilling." Hmmm, chilling. I'm not chilled, because I know it's pap. Or rather, I would prefer she spill the beans. Grow up and pull the trigger. She won't, and I don't think she can. But do you see how she just alludes to evidence? Over and over again? Claim: Strong evidence exists that shows McFnord sucks as an editor and deserves formal censure. Sadly, the evidence remains a secret in my vault! It's really there I promise! I know McFnord is harming Wikipedia but I can't really tell you why right now. (So she's willfully negligent about a known threat to Wikipedia?) Isn't this just another BLP violation about a living person? How come she can't stop? Mcfnord (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Mcfnord/sandbox4
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. Girth Summit  (blether) 19:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Edits at Heather Marsh
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)