The Bruce McMahan Dance goes on and on, Whitewashing incest of Rich & Powerful Options

[EricBarbour]

Anyone remember the Bruce McMahan flap from last year?

Well, the fun never stops!

This was posted on Reddit yesterday.

Thank you for linking to Tony's article. I'm glad to see this scumbag's past dredged up again.
I can offer some possibly interesting perspective on this incident. I was the Wikipedia editor who first created the Bruce McMahan page several years ago. I used the original Broward/Palm Beach New Times articles as my main source and was even nice enough to not call him out on his mail-order PhD.
Once the article entered Google and became a first-page hit for "Bruce McMahan", Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.
Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them. A resume was posted over the article. When I and several editors pushed back, several new but deeply concerned editors began inserting outright lies then tried to weaken the language of the daughter-fucking incident and bury it under mounds of glowing hagiography. They accused me and a handful of editors as being members of a conspiracy to destroy Bruce. One of his daughters even jumped in with a ridiculously long apologia in the discussion page. The volume of edits and sock puppets knocked the fight out of me, but a handful of other editors kept up and actually expanded the article to cover far more of the daughter-fucking incident than my original stub.
Eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article. For the next couple of years, the article became a paean to Bruce's charity work with the National Cristina Foundation and other bullshit. Bruce won. It stood this way for a long time until someone noticed that there was a random fluff piece floating around Wikipedia and proposed to delete it. Fuck it, I decided, and I voted to kill it.
Reddit, I implore you: vote this link up. Get it to the front page. Make Bruce McMahan and other rich people realize that when they try to suppress information with the tools of coercion and deception, free-speech-loving individuals will turn around and blow it up to the stratosphere.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL!!!

This thread was posted on Reddit earlier today.

Some historical background:
Cirt deleted the Bruce McMahan article last year, probably on direct orders from Wales.
David Bruce McMahan was deleted by NYB 2 days later.
There were three AfDs. The first, from January 2007, the second from February 2007,
and the third.

Delete If the Powers That Be continue to be determined to whitewash the whole "He fucked his daughter" thing, there's no reason to have this article. Props to your PR/legal company, bro. Chris Croy (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooooo.........Bruce McMahan/David Bruce McMahan has been "disappeared" from Wikipedia. (I'll leave the question of his "notability" to you good souls. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) )

Now we have the National Cristina Foundation article to contend with. The fun started today, with someone saying

(This article needs citations. At the moment it's not even clear if David Bruce McMahan exists.)

Dragged to AN/I. Oh, the comedy. Replete with Cirt and NYB covering their asses.

BONUS!! Here it is on the Village Voice blogsite!!
Now, is Mr. McMahan "notable enough" yet?

Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, right?? Right???.........

If anyone ever needs a vile, outrageous example of how Wikipedia
mismanages its "BLP policies", I nominate this. Hokay?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[EricBarbour]

Quick summary: McMahan is a wealthy Florida finanacier who married his own daughter (according to the Village Voice anyway). People tried to post this fact on Wikipedia, Bruce had his lawyers engage in editwars, then Bruce (or minions thereof) called Jimbo Himself and demanded "action". Said articles were deleted, by uninvolved admins--more or less. The battle has simply moved to the WP article on the nonprofit that McMahan founded.

If I were you, Horse, I'd include this in a book. It's smooth and creamy.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Is there any indication that McMahan and fellow Floridian Jimbo had any shared history prior to this episode?

[EricBarbour]

Is there any indication that McMahan and fellow Floridian Jimbo had any shared history prior to this episode?

Apparently not, as Jimbo lives on the Gulf side, and McMahan in Palm Beach.
Dunno anything else. McMahan has allegedly used his money and influence to
disappear most of the "controversy".

Use Markmail to search for Bruce McMahan, and you come up with the 2007 wikien-l discussion about this.
Complete with JzG and Gerard, claiming the McMahan story is a fake.

All of this is just soooo juicy.......

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

(credit goes to original researcher, and his new topic here. Apologies for cross posting this in new topic here).

Despite extensive court depositions including the DNA test of a vibrator, a Village Voice exposé, established notability of the main participant, Wikipedia apparently does censor the Biographies of Living People (BLP). Discussion starts, here and here.

So what are the grounds for courtesy BLP deletions? Simple ... it helps if you are rich and litigious. If you are not, even begging won't work because they don't and won't do it.

No one can argue the Wikipedia acts on moral grounds, so what is the motivating factors? Its own self interest and avoidance of expensive litigation? See discussion, linked to below, and court record where "Daddy tells daughter they were happily married in past life before getting it on".

I do not know much about BLP abuse, it is not something I have followed, but I do remember the problems Wikipedia and BLP critic Daniel Brandt had trying to have his removed and how the Wikipedia would not. I question the inequality factor and suggest that inequality is a consistent factor in the amateur Wikipedia system.

This is not about the incest, or even the tackiness of it all, it is about the persistently inconsistent and inequality of the system.

Newyorkbrad convenes.

I'll just leave this right here, if you don't mind.

Court records show, for example, that in Sargent Schutt's lawsuit against McMahan, his attorney had a "rabbit" vibrator Schutt found in Linda's luggage tested for DNA. According to the test results, skin cells from Linda and sperm cells from her father were found on the device and its black cover.

Delete If the Powers That Be continue to be determined to whitewash the whole "He fucked his daughter" thing, there's no reason to have this article. Props to your PR/legal company, bro. Chris Croy (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me you're a neutral contributor with no ties to Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP who just happened to blank the page for the third time after it was restored? It's disingenuous (very lawyer-like!) to accuse me of being someone with an axe to grind with McMahan; I frequently edit Wikipedia, have no agenda other than improving this project and protecting it from private interests, and I have the advantage of not being a sock puppet and lawyer hired by Mr. McMahan to protect his image.
Oh, and the funny thing about the subjects of tabloid stories--they're notable. What's true and notable about their lives would make it into a good Wikipedia article about them. Exeunt 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember, in Web 2.0, your personal hell is our real time entertainment ... forever.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[EricBarbour]

The point of all this is not that McMahan had sex with his daughter, married her, and broke a long list of laws. The point is not that he used his wealth and lawyers to cover it all up--that happens all the time in the US, and this won't be the last time either. Some self-made rich men are rabid horndogs, and feel that no one has the "right" to tell them who they can and cannot fuck, and how many babies they can manufacture. (Please note that McMahan was apparently married/divorced/whatever five times before this daughter-impregnation happened.)

The point is, Jimbo helped with the cover-up. He knew.
So did Guy Chapman. So did David Gerard. They lied.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Newyorkbrad]

Newyorkbrad convenes.

I deleted a version of this article last night that was entirely about the personal allegations against this individual, with no mention of anything independently notable that he ever did, and sourced to a blog and an original court document. If serious contributors to Wikipedia Review have ever previously contended that this sort of content belongs on Wikipedia, I've never heard of it. And for the record, before last night I'd never heard of the subject of the article, either, so please spare me any conjectures about my motives for deleting it.

Addendum: For anyone thinking we could use this article, see my note to Hobit on my talk.

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The point of all this is not that McMahan had sex with his daughter, married her, and broke a long list of laws. The point is not that he used his wealth and lawyers to cover it all up -- The point is, Jimbo helped with the cover-up. He knew. So did.. Guy Chapman. So did David Gerard. They lied.

I seriously agree and I apologize again for climbing on your giant shoulders for pulling this issue to the light. We both must have been working on it at the same time.

Read Wiki Brad playing the Wikipedia's own inhouse priggish asswipe lawyer ...

I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is notable. Why did not he just work on it and make it "acceptable".

On further reading, the story appears even more tragic. The daughter was 'of an affair of his', estranged and possibly unknown until 21 year old. There is a type of incest which happens between re-uniting parents/children, or siblings, which is 'relatively' common. Or at least not rare. No doubt the daughter reminded him of her mother too.

Note Wikpedian references to author Tony Ortega, the Editor-in-chief of the Village Voice, being called a 'hack' to discredit him.

You are right, it is not about the sex. Nor even the corruption of the rich and powerful. The real filth lies behind it in the Wikipedia warped and inconsistent morality and, if the paper trail leads all the way back, this may arise to be yet another example of Jimbo's positioning.

The 2nd nomination was on it way to being a 'Keep'. All three appear hurried through. Who was Nole7.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[EricBarbour]

I deleted a version of this article last night that was entirely about the personal allegations against this individual, with no mention of anything independently notable that he ever did, and sourced to a blog and an original court document. If serious contributors to Wikipedia Review have ever previously contended that this sort of content belongs on Wikipedia, I've never heard of it. And for the record, before last night I'd never heard of the subject of the article, either, so please spare me any conjectures about my motives for deleting it.

Behold! The Great Attorney speaks! In his cowardly and self-serving fashion!

Well, Brad, is the Village Voice a "reliable source" or not? Cuz I have no trouble finding other examples of its use, as a reliable source, on your miserable "encyclopedia".

I guess you'll have to send someone to delete all those references.

Show us the exceptions to NOTCENSORED, BLP, and NPOV that covers a situation in which a wealthy man is able to threaten "reliable sources" into silence, with only a couple of exceptions; and that, combined with the threat of legal action applied directly to Jimbo's pudgy little face, is enough to render those sources "non-reliable".

Go on. SHOW US. Prove it.

That's an awfully narrow line you're walking.

[thekohser]

Look out! The Big Bad Jimbo is making his involvement known now.

[TungstenCarbide]

Newyorkbrad convenes.

I deleted a version of this article last night that was entirely about the personal allegations against this individual, with no mention of anything independently notable that he ever did, and sourced to a blog and an original court document. If serious contributors to Wikipedia Review have ever previously contended that this sort of content belongs on Wikipedia, I've never heard of it. And for the record, before last night I'd never heard of the subject of the article, either, so please spare me any conjectures about my motives for deleting it.

Addendum: For anyone thinking we could use this article, see my note to Hobit on my talk.

Hey NYB, while you're in the mood for deleting howabout the illustrated page on Cock and ball torture ?

And what about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...exuality_Images. The SVGs are almost certainly copyright violations, run through an image-to-SVG converter to obscure the source.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod note: I have merged three concurrent threads on the same topic.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Hey NYB, while you're in the mood for deleting howabout the illustrated page on Cock and ball torture ?

Ah, but you see, those penises don't have a big dick attorney firm representing them. Wales appears to exclude any confirmation of whether lawyers have been threatening Wikimedia.

Is David Bruce McMahan less notable that, say, some cheap ass porno star whose only claim to fame is, e.g. a single "Best Anal Award" in 2007? - which Brad and the Wikipedia finds "acceptable".

How is your removal of all the educational c*nt and cum shots coming along? That is why I think your habitually pompous lawyerly pronouncements are full of shit Brad.

If they were applied consistently ... if such positions could be applied universally as editorial guidelines and were ... then I would deeply respect you. But you would not even try as under the present regime they can't be. The Court of Pornopedia, of which you are a courtier, is a naked farce. So its cock and ball torture for you too ... You took the side of protecting a super-rich sex abuser. A man how screw his own daughter on the basis that "her legs looking like a sexier version of his own". I feel a cartoon coming on.

Did David Bruce McMahan threaten the Wikimedia/Wikipedia with an attorney, yes or no? If so, what did they say? Let's have some disclosure.

If Village Voice is not "reliable" pull all Village Voice citations ... its all BS, so what is the behind the scenes truth?

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[EricBarbour]

The Reddit thread just keeps on giving us....fun:

Your link shows a pretty banal exchange regarding the merits of the article. It didn't really look like any shady business, but what do I know? There's also Alison's (apparently a Wiki-admin who helped decide the fate of the page) profile, where she looks like a ghoulish idiot in her photo, so I'm feeling even less convinced that this creepy alleged daughter-fucker's influence played a role in Wikipedia's decision. Again, I don't have any real insight into the inner-workings of this case, but I feel like ascribing any kind of involved conspiracy theory to Wikipedia admins is giving them too much credit.

Alison, dear, someone on the internet is being mean to you..........

It's a typical Reddit thread dealing with Wikipedia dirt. Most of them are ready to believe the worst about Jimbo's Folly. But then a few Kool-Aiders, like that Zagrobelny person, pop up and start shoveling the Wiki-lawyerly-nonsense and the Wiki-Happy-Jargon, thus shouting down a number of critics. You know, the usual Goebbels maneuver.

Similar things happened in the other thread.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cedric]

Look out! The Big Bad Jimbo is making his involvement known now.

As is so often the case when Jimbo makes a pronouncement about some "on wiki" controversy or other, if you take his statement and assume the 180-degree polar opposite is true, you will find the truth or something very near it. Such is the case here; IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. PERIOD.

But it's not just about McMahan's money, oh no. It's mostly about the WMF's money. What the WMF is doing here is simply following its SOP: to utterly and instantly fold in the face of a creditable threat of litigation against it. From the WMF's perspective "creditable" doesn't mean possessed of any legal merit, but rather posing the threat of substantial expense. As McMahan is notoriously wealthy, vindictive, litigious and amoral, the threat could not possibly be more creditable from the WMF's point of view. The Great Pile o' Cash that the WMF has been amassing at an increasingly frenetic pace (particularly since 2007) is sacrosanct; It must not suffer loss.

The real thing that makes this case different from others complaining of wiki-defamation is that the complaining party here is truly unsympathetic and reprehensible. Most complainants against the WMF have been genuinely aggrieved. If the evidence of The Village Voice is to be believed, McMahan is that rare breed of scumbag that is nearly impossible to defame.

Newyorkbrad may truly believe that he is acting to protect an important educational resource by volunteering to be the point man on this issue, but this is a gross delusion. Wikipedia's only educational value would be as a subject of study, not a resource in aid of study, assuming, of course, that study is of online sociopathy. One can only hope that enough pages of WP for purposes of that scientific study will survive the inevitable Great Wiki-Ragnarok™ and Disappearance of The Great Pile o' Cash.* It is the only good that is liable to be wrested from this pit of agony, strife and sociopathy. Or lake of shit, if you prefer . . . .




*Into some offshore bank accounts, I'm guessing.

[TungstenCarbide]

Hey NYB, while you're in the mood for deleting howabout the illustrated page on Cock and ball torture ?

Ah, but you see, those penises don't have a big dick attorney firm representing them. Wales appears to exclude any confirmation of whether lawyers have been threatening Wikimedia...

exactly. The Wikipedia community as a whole doesn't have a shred of decency, fairness, judgment, ethics, academic rigor or maturity. They are great though at thumping their chests in self-righteousness bout how they are making the world a better place, with illustrated creampie articles. Their culture is pathologic.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[EricBarbour]

Newyorkbrad may truly believe that he is acting to protect an important educational resource by volunteering to be the point man on this issue, but this is a gross delusion. Wikipedia's only educational value would be as a subject of study, not a resource in aid of study, assuming, of course, that study is of online sociopathy.

Well put.

The Wikipedia community as a whole doesn't have a shred of decency, fairness, judgment, ethics, academic rigor or maturity. They are great though at thumping their chests in self-righteousness bout how they are making the world a better place, with illustrated creampie articles. Their culture is pathologic.

Also well put. It's not an "encyclopedia". it's an experiment in aberrant psychology!
I want more truth in advertising!!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

02:06, 9 October 2010 Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) deleted "David Bruce McMahan" ‎ (BLP violations; re-creation in violation of multiple AfD results; do not restore)

Note the wording.

Looking closely at the AfDs, you have:

one Keep that was still closed.
one nomination withdrawn.
One delete - which we Brad tell us was a 'post-lawyer and PR company' vanity piece.

Now, look at the language. What is being said here. "Re-creation in violation of multiple AfD results". Re-creation of which version? What "multiple AfD results"? One AfD was a keep One was withdrawn, that's 1:1:1 all.

I think it is a code meaning, "Let's just shut them up and not bother". "Do not restore" which version? Is it not just a code flag to stop anyone re-publishing the topic? So what is Brad not telling us? What discussion was there. We all know fine just how vague and elastic Jimmy's pronouncements are.

What discredits Newyorkbrad's and the Wikimedia's position is that the Wikipedia is littered with other single notoriety incest cases ... I stopped counting when it hit double figures: Incest cases. Including, of course, the critically important and notable The Misled Romance of Cannibal Girl & Incest Boy, a magnificent cavalcade of violence, gore and incestual sexual mayhem between a cannibalistic goth girl and a mildly deformed inbred boy which the Poor Girl in Africa cannot be without knowing ...

gore, cannibalism, punk & goth clothing, blood, abortions, protestors, blood, impaling, short skirts, blood, decapitation, boobs, blood, face eating, dismemberment, blood, cemetery sex, thigh-high stockings, a dumpster labeled 'aborted fetuses' and one blow job gone horribly, horribly wrong...and blood!

In the Bruce McMahan case, he most certainly has numerous other factors which make him perfectly notable, apart from just screwing his daughter or censoring the Wikipedia. What is the problem then? Oh, one is rich and powerful the others are poor.

What gets me is that they make noises about how issues ought to be seriously discussed but not actually what those issues might be or having them. Instead, it is, "shut up and dealt with it, go find another hobby punk."

Is it just me, or is McMahan's hand unfortunately misplaced here?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/5071117064_7d4baecc29_b.jpg)

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/5071117064_7d4baecc29_b.jpg)

Have to repeat the illustrations. Very good.

Now srsly, NewYorkBrad. Does this mean WP has no accepted a new standard of notability? MR. McMahan is a very rich philanthropist who had a affair with his daughter and then married her in Westminster Abbey (or so I heard), and now is being sued by her in a somewhat...um... sordid case (DNA from vibrators (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) -- am I mixed up again?). If he isn't notable enough for a WP BLP, then why is the goalie for every city soccer team in the U.K.? Or the professors at our local university, just by virtue of being professors (even if their teaching sucks and there's nothing else interesting about them).

When can we start deleting this stuff per the new McMahan standard? We've got, like 400,000 of them....

And if I have the McMahan story mixed up, it's your fault. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)