User talk:Vcuttolo

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Vcuttolo. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Dinesh D'Souza shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:NuclearWizard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to ask for help from other editors, provided you do so without attacking someone in the terms you've been using. Acroterion (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Vince Foster, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. -Nick Gurr 7777 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Teratix. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Suicide of Vince Foster seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tera TIX 08:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Teratix. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. So Why 09:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Conspiracy theories

You appear to believe in a number of fringe partisan conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to attempt to push those fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream. This is particularly relevant when discussing living people such as Brett Kavanaugh — claims that he was responsible for "browbeating a witness" needs far more corroboration and reporting than a single, widely-disparaged book of conspiracy theorizing before we include it in a biography. We have strict standards for sourcing biographical articles precisely to protect our article subjects from defamatory or otherwise-inappropriate material being included in their biographies. Before editing these articles further, I strongly suggest you review our policies. If you continue credulously pushing conspiracymongering nonsense into biographies, you will likely wind up topic-banned or outright banned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, this edit is completely unacceptable. Your personal belief that a reporter is a "Clinton apologist" is nothing more than that, and has zero place in a Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Suicide of Vince Foster. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've modified your response to Oshwah to be the rhetorical question I hoped it was. Thank you for that adjustment. Like Oshwah, I'll remove my warning. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Barry Seal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 21:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to biographies of living and recently deceased people

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 any 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 11:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "improved context" edit to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be a violation of WP:BLP

And possibly of our American Politics sanctions. You wrote "many of whom were armed militants trying to cross into Israel and kill civilians". Now obviously since there's a source at the end of the sentence, if you are following our policies that's in the source. I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall, so would you please quote the portion from the article that sources your claim?[1] That would be a start. It would also need a source discussing her and the bit you added.

Although the latter is moot as you shouldn't have made the edit at all - see below, I still would like to see the quote from the source that backs your added text. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 any 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 11:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How this applies to you - you need to avoid any edits related to the conflict until you reach 500 edits

There are specific restrictions involving editors with less than 500 edits.

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

This means that there are some articles you actually cannot edit. Where you can edit, you may not make any edits relating to the conflict until you reach 500 normal edits. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material in Death of Erica Parsons

"Where did " In an unusual move, the Parsonses left the show before the polygraph results were announced" come from? And "The release dates may be academic, as both are facing far more serious legal jeopardy now." - please read WP:VERIFY and no original resarch. Note that this article falls under our biography of living persons policy. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O3000 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC) I clearly and obviously did no such thing. I corrected a mislabeling of a situation upon which she had commented. Even if one disagrees with the facts I presented - and facts they are - it is inconceivable that one would consider my corrections to be a defamatory of Ms. Cortez herself. Vcuttolo (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 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! ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned for 1 month from editing anything relating to Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted

You have been sanctioned for violating the restrictions explained to you in August making it clear that you could not edit in this area until you had 500 edits.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[<a-i>#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned for 1 month from editing anything relating to biographies of living or recently deceased people, broadly interpreted

You have been sanctioned repetition of problems with your editing at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for which you were warned in August and edit-warring over them.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification

Instructions are given explaining how to appeal. Note that I to make sure you understood it all, I explicitly wrote "This means that there are some articles you actually cannot edit. Where you can edit, you may not make any edits relating to the conflict until you reach 500 normal edits." Doug Weller talk 09:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that I have not banned you from American politics. I strongly suggest that you tread carefully in this area however. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Rafael Santana. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. ‑ Iridescent 08:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC) I responded on your talk page. Vcuttolo (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation and some honest advice

A topic ban means that you may not edit articles or talk pages related to the topic in question. For that reason, I've removed your posting from Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. What you really need to do right now is stop, step back from these issues, and go edit less controversial articles on other topics of interest, while taking time to learn about Wikipedia's fundamental policies like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:RS. I'm taking the time to talk to you about this because I'd like to see you develop into a productive editor and I don't think you're one of the many folks who just drops in to troll. But there are complex rules on the encyclopedia for good reason, and ignoring them while railing against what you perceive as political bias is not likely to result in a happy ending. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take one example edit and break it down to try and help you understand why your edits are not acceptable.

You wrote Ignoring the violent nature of the protests^[1] as well as the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group by the US and the EU) - some of whom were shot attempting to breach the Israeli border,^[2] Ocasio-Cortez compared the situation to the peaceful teachers' strike taking place in West Virginia at the time, asking what would happen if 60 people had been shot at the latter event.^[3]

Firstly, writing that the article subject "ignored" something is a statement of opinion, and we may not include our own personal opinions in Wikipedia articles.

Secondly, you have entirely mixed up and conflated timelines in a wholly-unacceptable manner. The source you cite for Ocasio-Cortez's statement is from June 27, 2018, where she refers to a particular set of protests. You then attempt to contrast her remarks with an entirely-separate set of protests three and a half months later, sourced to the CNN articles from October 12, 2018. Do you understand how that's unacceptable logically, besides being original research and synthesis? Even taking all the claims in the articles at face value, how can Ocasio-Cortez's remarks be related to something that wouldn't happen until 100 days later? Are you suggesting she can time-travel? It's absurd, it's illogical and it's not acceptable on the encyclopedia. So it was reverted. And then you ignored the good advice given to you that it was unacceptable, so you got topic-banned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the new post you made to Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for the same reason NorthBySouthBaranof removed your previous one: it was yet another violation of your topic ban. You seemed not to have understood that the topic ban extends to all Wikipedia pages when you made the new post, given that you posted this afterwards; now you know, so please make sure that you don't continue to violate your ban. Do take a moment to read the information linked in the sanction notices above. Topic bans are described here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Vcuttolo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive editing? Based upon what? I added responsible content, and provided three solid sources. Vcuttolo (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018 2

I noticed with surprise that here, you inserted a "falsely" into the (properly sourced) statement that Leah Nelson labeled Colin Flaherty a white nationalist propagandist. The source you added for "falsely" — stated in Wikipedia's voice — was a comment by Flaherty himself. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and most definitely not by what people say about themselves. (Nobody is likely to call themselves white nationalist propagandists, just as no political party is likely to call themselves "populist" or whatever. That doesn't mean we can't use those terms, as long as reliable sources use them.) That was not the only poor-quality edit you made to the same article, but probably the most egregious. Please take a look at our policy concerning reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, before you continue editing. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

TBC, I never implied that Leah Nelson was quoted inaccurately. I do believe that she was off-base with her charge.

There are plenty of self-identified "white nationalists" out there, some of whom have criticized Colin Flaherty for not joining their ranks. I have never purchased any of Colin Flaherty's books, but I have seen his work on YT, and it is of extremely poor production quality. Does that make him a "white nationalist"? Hardly.

In the piece to which I linked, Flaherty points out that he goes to any media that will have him. According to Flaherty, that would include white nationalist media, but it also includes similar organs on the extreme left, such as the Nation of Islam. Anywhere he can go to spread his message.

I am aware of the WP second-hand sourcing rule, although I was and am still pretty certain that if a quote is attributed to the subject of the article, or (as in this case) to the author of the work that is the subject of the article, then a direct link to his denial of a charge is warranted.

Considering the charge of racism against Flaherty, I believe it is appropriate to identify the two people who gave him positive reviews as being both black and respected. Truthfully, it didn't look right to me as I wrote it, but I couldn't figure out how else to put the charge of racism into proper context; it is unsubstantiated, and he has highly intelligent and educated black supporters.

I think Wikipdia should be very careful before repeating unsubstantiated charges without rebuttal. I will take all suggestions as to how to do so in this case.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed? Uh... what did you think I meant when I said it's "stated in Wikipedia's voice" that Nelson's description is false? Did you just hop over that? "Falsely", the way you added it, is stated as an indubitable fact. It's stated as if by Wikipedia. It's certainly not attributed to Flaherty. Only your footnote, for those readers (hardly the majority) who read footnotes, attributes it to Flaherty — not your text. The distinction is vital. If you had written something like "Flaherty denies being a white nationalist propagandist", with a footnote to his statement, that would have attributed it to Flaherty (though I don't understand what it is you call a quote). Then the question becomes whether or not it's WP:UNDUE to point out that he denies it; I don't have any opinion on that.

(Please use colons to indent replies in a discussion, see WP:THREAD or just look at how I did it.) Bishonen | talk 13:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the part I added when I wrote that Flaherty denied the charge. I will grant that I am less than coherent right now, as I am rather sleep deprived at the moment. I did go back to that page and tried again. Please tell me if I got it right this time.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:THREAD. When you reply to someone who used one colon, you should use two colons, and so on. See? Bishonen | talk 14:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Okay! How about my latest attempt at the edit in question?

Vcuttolo (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(And sign at the end of your post, not on a separate line. See how your signature jumps out to the left-hand margin, when you do it like that?) I'm not sure if the other editors will accept your text about Flaherty's denial. I'm here purely as an admin, and want to stay uninvolved wrt the article, so I prefer not to have any opinion about it. You have fixed the thing I complained about from an admin point of view, yes. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Got it. Vcuttolo (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that Kamala Harris had an illicit affair with a married man

Your edit here[2] makes it appear that Kamala Harris had an illicit affair with a married man. However, all RS on the subject make it clear that the man in question had been estranged from his wife for more than a decade - why did you leave out that context? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the misimpression that Brown was still together with his wife at that time. When I saw the second revert, I read the added link which explained that Brown was already separated, which is why I chose not to pursue it further.

Do I believe it is still relevant? Well, yes. I think it is worth a mention that Brown had separated from his wife at the time. But I don't think it is worth making a fuss over. For context, I went to Donald Trump Jr.'s WP article to see if it mentioned that he is currently dating Kimberly Guilfoyle while Trump Jr is still legally married to his wife, and there is no mention of his marital status either. I would vote for a mention - married, but separated - but I grant that current thinking seems to be unconcerned about such matters.

Lastly, the Cosmopolitan article linked by the who editor who reverted me seems to be a clear violation of RS rules, as a reading of the opinion piece will show. But again, I chose not to fight that battle. I hope someone does remove that clearly unreliable source, but it doesn't make a huge difference overall.

Thank you for reaching out.

Vcuttolo (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are banned from any topic relating to Vince Foster or his death, broadly construed, for six months. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned for persistently posting failing to adhere to required standards of talkpage conduct and for abusing talkpages as a soapbox for your personal views.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the ban, please check out the process described here, or ask on my talk page and I will explain how to do it. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to amaze how some parts of WP are utterly allergic to facts. All I wrote - on the TALK PAGE, mind you, not in the body of the article itself - is that the evidence clearly leans heavily to homicide, not suicide. That, and I mentioned several easily veriable points that are entirely misrepresented in the article. Any reason that a discussion of the evidence in the case is not allowed? Are we in the Soviet Union? I thought freedom of beliefs and of speech was a positive around here. Does WP not believe in such things? You deleted my TALK PAGE comment, which listed several highly respected people who have questioned the idea that Foster's death was a suicide. Why would that be a problem? I also gave sources for those who wish to seek out the evidence for themselves. Why is that a problem? Or would you rather such silence me instead of engaging me in intelligent discourse?

You can block me for 1000 years, but that will not change the fact that the WP article entitled "Suicide of Vince Foster" is chock-full of falsities, verifiably so.

Vcuttolo (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions apply to behaviour on talk pages, as does our BLP policy. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point, Doug? I never said otherwise. All I said is that the resistance to factual evidence is pretty strong around here.

Vcuttolo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: Per this detailing of what a topic ban entails. Note the last point, using a hypothetical topic ban on "weather" as an example:

discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes) .

Your whinging here and this edit count as violations, for future reference. Testing the limits never ends well. --Calton | Talk 14:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. The facts are not to be raised, period. All of us who care about the truth must be silenced. I'm clear now.

Vcuttolo (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your only warning about breaches of your topic ban - appeals may be made to me (and it must be a good-faith appeal, not a complaint) or to the Arbitration Committee venue noted above. Nowhere else. This [3], for instance, is an example of a topic ban violation - testing boundaries is more of what you've been doing. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you may be blocked from editing. You've been reverted and seen people objected your edits on the talk page, yet still added virtually the same content with your own original commentary. This is quite a surefire way to get you editing rights revoked considering your previous editing on the page relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict where you tried to add content that imply the subject endorsing "terrorist" "invaders". Please consider this fair warning on what you might be walking yourself into. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vcuttolo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: ). Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating a 1RR restriction on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of edit warring on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page, which is simply inaccurate. A look at the reason given by the editor who reverted me, followed by the explanation I provided in my follow-up, will show that I was trying to comply with the wishes of the other editor.

I had added to the "Media" section of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article by mentioning that "she has received" criticism for making a number of verbal gaffes, and I added 4 more sources to the 3 that had been there in relation to the issue, for a total of 7. I intentionally did not specify her verbal gaffes as I was trying to avoid piling on; if anyone cared, they could look at the sources.

The editor who reverted me said that I was violating WP:WEASEL by writing "she was criticized". I was also told (by the same editor or someone else, I forget) that the whole did not belong in the "Media" section anyway.

In order to address those complaints, I listed two criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez's verbal gaffes, but no longer by the "weasel" term "she was criticized": I quoted Anderson Cooper interviewing her on 60 Minutes, and Chris Cillizza writing about her on CNN (or in the Washington Post, I forget. He writes for both).

I also moved them out of the "Media" section, and, seeing how they did not fit elsewhere, opened a new section called "Criticism".

For evidence, please see what I wrote as the explanation for my edits, see what the other editors wrote at around the same time in relation to all that, and see what the "Media" conversation on the Talk Page says. I was very, very open about what I was trying to do.

Please take with a grain of salt everything written by Tsumikiria, who recommended me for sanction here, as he has many times before. He wrote a number of false claims about me, and has targeted me for months, as the record will show. He also once reverted me on the basis of having used an Israeli newspaper as a source, saying "everyone knows israeli media lies".

I hope that you can see that in no way was I edit warring here - I was trying to comply with what the other editor or editors had requested.

I also request that, if possible under WP rules, Tsumikiria be asked to stop stalking me on WP, and to stop falsely accusing me.

Thank you.

Decline reason:

The only issue here is if you violated the 1RR restriction on the article about AOC; the record shows that you did. It doesn't matter why you were edit warring. After being reverted, you need to go to the talk page and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think I'm the editor who cited WP:WEASEL. That was one of several concerns that I expressed with the section in edit summaries and on the talk page. In this edit, you replaced "she was criticized" with she "has been prone to verbal gaffes, leading some to speculate that she is not well-versed on the issues." - without specifying the source of the criticism. That's not an improvement. The easy solution here is to just use the talk page to hash out something that meets consensus instead of just restoring stuff that has been reverted with minimal changes. Nblund^talk 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incomplete description of what I was trying to do. As I explained in my edit, I was in the process of setting the whole thing up differently, but didn't make it very far. You are quoting my first sentence, which was meant to be followed up with specifics. "In an interview on 60 Minutes, Anderson Cooper asked Ocasio-Cortez about...", "Chris Cillizza, in a column for CNN, compared Ocasio-Cortez's comment to Donald Trump's...". Again, and as I wrote in both my explanation box for my edits, as well in the "Media" discussion on the Talk Page, I was trying to set it up in a way that would work for everyone. It is rather surprising to me that any action would be taken against me, considering that I was very clearly and openly trying to work it out in a way that was agreeable to all.

Vcuttolo (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth time in 24 hours (123) that you promulgate the falsehood that I said "everyone knows israeli media lies". Deliberately misquoting and complaining about other editors in your unblock requests will never fare you well. MSGJ explained quite clearly to you that "a phrase about "verbal gaffes" was added three times in the last 24 hours", which is a breach of the WP:1RR restriction that you're clearly aware of. Unfortunately, if you continue to refuse to listen to other editors' advices and treat Wikipedia as a battleground, your next violation will very likely earn you a much longer block or a much broader topic ban. Please. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I did not quote your anti-Semitic comment correctly, although I don't know that you are, either. No matter, your comment was anti-Semitic. Either way, before you throw out accusations, you may want to check your own behavior: You have repeatedly accused me falsely, including higher up in this discussion, of accusing Ocasio-Cortez of supporting a terrorist invasion of Israel. That is false, and if you don't stop with the false accusations, you may well be subject to sanction yourself. You really should avoid the Ocasio-Cortez article, as well as matters pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict, as your tendency is to push your personal opinion into articles that should be based upon fact. My edit at Ocasio-Cortez in relation to her "massacre" comment was based upon the then-edit protected WP article, 2018 Gaza border protests. Ocasio-Cortez made a comment that was obviously out of bounds; she felt compelled, in a different setting, to admit that she is "not the expert" on such matters. The Ocasio-Cortez article at that time (it was changed long ago) contained a quote lauding her for her criticism of Israel; there was no mention that she had gotten the basic facts wrong.

Back to you. You falsely me accused above, as explained. You falsely accused me of being sanctioned for your false accusation above; I was sanctioned for mistakenly using the wrong source, which was from an incident three months later. You have now been falsely accusing me of edit warring with the recent inclusion I attempted to make of the criticism she has received; in fact, as my comments there show, I was trying to work with those who were unhappy with my first edit, and trying to include the information in the article in a way that was agreeable to all.

Please stop with the false accusations, with the anti-Semitic comments, and with trying to push your POV into WP articles. Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is categorically false, as well as being a gross violation of no personal attacks. If your POV renders you incapable of distinguishing genuine antisemitic hatred and criticism of the Israel state, or if you're deliberately obfuscating them for political advantage, you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia in the first place. I propose another remedy. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Address your criticism to yourself. Substitute "African-American media" for "Israeli media", and no one would argue that the comment was racist. Instead, it was anti-Semitic.

My editing history shows an interest in building a better Wikipedia. The overwhelming number of my edits have been entirely uncontroversial; I usually try to straighten out the article's grammar. Occasionally I add personal information, such as marriage or children or hometown. But if an article cries out for other types of editing, there is nothing wrong with providing such. The Ocasio-Cortez article, while an improvement over what it was a couple of months ago, is still largely built on left-wing opinion media, such as the Huffington Post and Slate. That does not lead to balance. Including criticism from sources such as CBS and CNN (not Fox News or the like) was an attempt at providing balance in a very unbalanced article. (At last check, the only reference to criticism there is sourced from left-wing opinion media, and was about Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of others for criticizing her.) Considering the numerous gaffes she has made, which has been noted by mainstream media organizations, the current article lacks balance, in that those gaffes are not mentioned. And if someone doesn't see that, they should look in the mirror before doing anything else on Wikipedia.

You did not address your repeated and continuing false claims against me. It is time for those to stop.

For that matter, I would recommend that you stop interacting with me, be it the direct method you use in coming frequently to my page here, or in reverting my edits. If my editing is as egregious as you falsely claim it is, there are many other editors, with no ax to grind, who will undoubtedly correct me.

Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a skin suit now. Shed it.

Regarding this, this may interest you. Good luck. --Froglich (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in relation to the Vince Foster article? Or to Wikipedia's left-wing bias in general? Please remind me.

May 2019

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Bobby Cox. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted something at the end of the previous spousal abuse discussion on the Talk Page inviting everyone back for another round. You are one of those. If no one knows about the new conversation on the Talk Page, how will we reach a concensus? Bobby Cox is not currently a page that receives much traffic.

Vcuttolo (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bridget Namiotka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Coughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. You're right. I messed that one up. I should have put in John Coughlin. My bad. Thank you for the head's up.

Vcuttolo (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Please consider whether these deletions on a page you are editing are all warranted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Wax&diff=906704558&oldid=904527924 --2604:2000:E010:1100:C03:4805:DB57:DCE9 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and Secret Service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, bot :)

Fixed.

Vcuttolo (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Death of Jonbenet Ramsey

Much of your extremely lengthy talkpage discussion takes the form of thinly veiled attacks on other editors. This must stop. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be quite frustrating when an editor pushes his very-limited knowledge POV to distort a Wikipedia article, and undoes hours of work with a three second, knee-jerk mass revert.

Yes, I am aware of WP's rules; I was at times incredulous about some of what was going on.

Vcuttolo (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again. Stop it. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Hope you do the same for those who have been slandering me.

Vcuttolo (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying other users about possible edit warring

Vcuttolo, If you open a discussion at another editor's user talk page regarding supposed edit warring on their part, as you did here, please be sure that you provide diffs of the specific edits that you believe violate Wikipedia's edit warring policy, so that they can properly respond. For most articles at Wikipedia not under special sanctions, and most editors, the three-revert rule would apply, so you would need four diffs.

Since there were no diffs in your message, I had a look at the article history at Death of JonBenét Ramsey myself, and I see no reverts by User:Crossroads1 in the 24 hours preceding the edit-warring notice you posted on their talk page earlier today. Looking further back, the last revert I see was this one a week ago, reverting vandalism by an IP editor. The last revert I see involving you, was this one, on September 2, with one other revert that day. So, your edit-warring report seems to be mistaken, unless you are talking about something that happened earlier than that.

If this is the first time you've mistakenly notified a user about edit warring, it will no doubt be overlooked. However, you should be aware that repeated mistaken notifications of this type could be seen as WP:Casting aspersions, and you should try to avoid that, because at some point it could be interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks, which could leave you subject to sanctions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Mathglot notes, accusing people of edit warring when they haven't been can be sanctionable, especially if you're using such accusations to try to win an argument. Disagreement with your edits doesn't entitle you to issue warnings of that kind. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mathglot, for your comment. I strive to be a part of creating a better Wikipedia, although the particulars of the WP legal rules and terminology seem to frequently elude me. The editor in question had reverted me on multiple occasions without any real basis, once reverting me - for allegedly using an NRS - without bothering to check the source I cited. He also made a false accusation against me on the Talk page in that article. I wrote the referenced comment on his Talk page after he had reverted me for not following Wikipedia's two-source rule - a rule that rather obviously does not exist. If there is a term to describe an editor who appears to be targeting me, what would that be?

Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're misstating Wikipedia policy on sourcing - the "two-source rule" that you're claiming was alluded to was simply a request for better and broader sourcing. You are editing tendentiously, and attempting to discredit other editors. Stop casting aspersions. You've been warned and blocked for this before. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not misstate WP's rule on sourcing: There is no two-source rule. The "request" (actually a reversion) makes no sense if it is for "better and broader" sourcing, in that I was quoting what is widely considered the best source on this case. The tendentiousness is coming from the tag-team which has reverted wholesale virtually every edit I've made there, at times under the thinnest of veneers. (While I certainly cannot prove that those two editors are working in tandem, I do notice that they have taken turns reverting me while referencing each other, and have similarly appeared together on unrelated material as well. Concidence? Just a question.) I have repeatedly tried to broaden the article to have it accurately represent the situation as it is described by the most and the best sources, yet have been continuously reverted for changing, and at times specious, reasons. And at the same time watched one of those two editors add to the article a significant amount of content taken from a source which is extremely shaky, as explained there.

Vcuttolo (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most high profile articles are on the watchlists of a number of editors, and if the articles have something in common the same editors will show up. On the other hand, if I'm concerned that an editor might be a problem, they often go on my watchlist, and if they are a problem on a certain article other editors there might add them also. As for talk page stalker, that's a jokey name, but see WP:TPS. Can I also remind you that discretionary sanctions also apply to all talk pages, including user pages. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doug. Although I am familiar with WP:TPS, it was somewhat incongruous with that editor's very friendly and helpful message.

In fact, I very rarely scan other editors' Talk or Home pages, as I am focused on improving the Wikipedia articles, not looking into other people's lives. That got me in trouble with one of those two editors in question, as I did not realize that she is a she until the other editor in question referred to her as such. (I had used "him".) Anyway, when I did go to the Talk page of one of the two, I checked on the previous discussion there, which was about an article related to human sexuality, a topic clearly unrelated to the "Death of JonBenét Ramsey". It is the only one I opened - and right there the editor in question writes that he agrees with the other editor in question. True crime, and human sexuality? Not sure I see the connection.

As 30 seconds hardly resembles an exhaustive investigation, I don't know if there is more to this pattern.

As I wrote, I can not prove meat puppetry (and certainly not sock puppetry), nor would I even know how to do so if it turns out that the correlation rate is a perfect "1" on articles the two edit. (I am hardly a digital native.) I'm just noting something I bumped into, and asking a question.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vcuttolo. Thanks for your question about {{tps}}, it made me take another look at it. The intention, is to help explain to an editor (like you, in this case) what I am doing on a third party's talk page answering your question or responding to your comment, when it had nothing to do with me at the outset. It's like a pre-emptive answer to the question, "Why are you even here?"

I agree that "stalker" isn't the best term, and I always wished it said, "talk page watcher", and was about to request an alteration of the template (or creation of a new one) when I had another look; and lo and behold: it *already* has an option to display "talk page watcher", so I'm going to use that from now on. So, you're question was helpful to me, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing: if you're not sure of an editor's gender and wish to use the correct pronouns for them, see the template collection at {{they}}. Those templates make use of the "gender" choice that an editor can set in their Preferences. If the editor chooses a gender option, then {{they}} expands to to "he" or "she" on the Talk page; if no choice is made, then it expands to the word "they" (or "them", "their", "theirs" etc., depending which template you pick). Once you see the expansion in preview mode, you can either keep using them, or just switch back to the proper pronoun that you type in. If you want to set your gender choice, click Preferences at the top of this page, and scroll down a bit. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, for your help, and for your friendliness. It really makes a big difference.

🙏

Vcuttolo (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring

You've been warned about edit warring at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article more than once, including here before your third revert on that specific material. And what did you state on the article's talk page? You stated, "Let's see how often I continue to get reverted by someone or another for daring to try to balance out this article." After I warned you about edit warring, you went right back to edit warring. Eventually, the article needed to be full-protected.

Since full-protection has worn off, you have been reverted more than once by two different editors (Crossroads1 and I) on a new piece of text, and clear explanations for why have been given via edit summaries. Instead of stopping and taking the matter to the article's talk page, you took the matter to an editor's talk page and wrongly accused him of misconduct. You've also cast aspersions above. As seen above, you've been warned about both. And, apparently, WP:Meatpuppetry is another policy you need to understand. You need to stop trying to strong-arm your content into the article. In other words, stop edit warring. Crossroads1 and I have reverted you for valid reasons. You do not need to violate WP:3RR to be edit warring. I will be reporting what I stated in this section at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

You have been strongarming me out of making appropriate and necessary improvements to the article. You admitted on the Talk page to having a theory which you then pushed into the article, one which is no longer believed accurate by the investigators, as reported by reliable, mainstream sources.

Your and Crossroads1's reasons for reverting me keep changing, but the reversions never stop. Each time I adjust my edit to address your concern, you simply come up with a different reason. I have continued to rewrite my edits to satisfy the concerns you raised, but that has clearly been a moving target. I have used the most reliable sources, while you have tried to drown me out by introducing content from questionable ones. As long as you continue to try to push your outdated theory, as given by you on the Talk page, into the article, the article will be off base. And once I have addressed any reasons you gave for reverting me, your continuing to revert me for new reasons, or for no given reason at all, demonstrates that you are basing your reversions on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Vcuttolo (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I "admitted on the Talk page to having a theory which [I] then pushed into the article"? False. You appear to be confusing me with you. I'm not interested in your misrepresentations, ignorance or odd take with regard to this site's policies and guidelines. I've learned from discussing (and I state "discussing" loosely) with you on the article's talk page that attempting discourse with you is a waste of time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly tried to discuss the issues with you, but you refused to meaningfully engage. You are accusing me instead of doing precisely what you are doing. The inaccurate claims you have made are glaringly obvious, but you dismissed all as "quibbling", and continue to push your outdated theory into the article. The article should reflect the facts as they are reported by mainstream, reliable sources, not as you wish them to be in contravention of the known, reported facts of the case.

Please do not deny that you have a pet theory: It is there in black and white on the Talk page for all to see.

Vcuttolo (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you wrote on the Talk page requiring multiple sources, explaining that I was being reverted for using only a single source. No such rule exists. The Dr. Michael Graham piece you added has not been reported in various reliable sources. It's just his speculation No, it's his proffesional opinion as gathered by the DA's office and reported by a reliable source. ~~\\ Vcuttolo (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted quotation marks. "The Dr. Michael Graham piece you added has not been reported in various reliable sources. It's just his speculation" Since when do we need various reliable sources instead of just one? And it's not speculation, obviously. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote from you on the Talk page, bolded in the original quote. "There was no sign of forced entry. Any statement that there was forced entry is speculation." Many reliable sources list long lists of evidence of an intruder. When I tried to explain it to you, you were dismissive. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I explained the massive difference between evidence and proof, you were dismissive. "your evidence vs. proof quibble" This is extremely important, and is part of the underlying reasons for the mistaken edits you have made in the article. But you refused to admit a thing. Even when I linked to a New York Times article in relation to this point, you did not budge. Editing based upon mistaken assumptions is problematic, and leads to distorted articles. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not addressing all of that, but the "various reliable sources" thing is where you do not understand the WP:Due weight policy. What is so difficult to understand about that policy? Yes, when something is only reported on in one source as opposed to various reliable sources and/or contrasts what reliable sources usually state on the topic, we are going to call the material undue or at least not give it a lot of weight in the article if we do include it. Also see WP:REDFLAG. I stand by what I stated about the forced entry claim, per what I argued on the talk page. More stated here. I'm not arguing these matters with you any further. The next step will very likely be WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something else you wrote on the Talk page. "What everyone agrees on is that it is highly suspicious that the note mentions that bonus and that anyone would take so long to write a ransom note " That is a false claim, actually two false claims. There is not a source on this earth that says the ransom note mentions John Ramsey's bonus of the prior year. It demands a very similar amount, which may well mean that the author knew of John Ramsey's earlier bonus - unless it doesn't. I explained that multiple theories exist, but you were dismissive. I added other theories that investigators spent a long time considering as to the meaning of the number $118,000, using a highly reliable source, and you reverted me without explanation (outside of the "edit warring" accusation). Second point you got wrong: "Everyone" certainly does not agree about the length of the note, as it was, according to many investigators, written during the five hours that the intruder had the house to himself. And every time I try to explain any of this, you dismiss, and revert. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every reliable source says there was evidence of an intruder. How many sources have you read? You are imbalancing an article because of the mistakes you are making. Vcuttolo (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

See this thread. Per WP:TPO, do not break into my comment; this includes not commenting in the collapse box. Reply underneath my post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for a combination of edit warring, POV-pushing, not-neutral editing, pushing conspiracy theories, cussing out other editors and thereby politicizing what should be a collaborative environment--in short, general disruption and being a net negative to the project. Your comment on ANI actually underscores that point. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I was accused by Flyer22 Reborn on the ANI page of being a serial disrupting editor. I wrote in response, briefly, that her charges against me included much in the way of quotes pulled out of context, responses omitted, diffs placed out of order, as well as a few fabrications. I explained that I was not available then, but would try to more fully respond in a few hours. I was then blocked for not only the charges I did not yet have time to fully respond to, but for even writing what I just wrote in the previous paragraph: That the accusations included unfair and even untrue allegations against me. I find that baffling. I have a couple of strikes against me before I start: 1. Either I'm technologically near-useless, or else my phone limits my capabilities (or both), but I can't leave this page to copy-and-paste evidence that I need, or else everything I write here disappears. I can't provide direct links to diffs or other evidence. 2. My interests are in topics that tend to bump into controversy. I always felt bad for cabdrivers who can lose their licenses for three moving violations in 18 months, when they spend more time on the road daily than the average person does in a week. If I had an abiding interest in horticulture, I would not be likely to run into editors who have extremely strong opinions on matters. The editor who brought me to ANI wrote a very long screed pulling out alleged offenses I've committed since the start of 2018. I will grant that there were times that I lost my cool earlier in my Wikipedia career, but I think if we need to go back to nearly two years ago, we are reaching. And most of my 1500 edits are decidedly not controversial. The complaint against me quoted any editor the complainant could find, even if there was no basis to the complaint, and even if the editor themselves had been sanctioned for inappropriate behavior. *For example, the very first accusation listed against me by Flyer22 Reborn on the ANI, going back to early 2018, was when "Volunteer Marek" objected to my adding the word "allegedly" to the Dinesh D'Souza article. I added "allegedly", because the text wrote as fact - in Wikipedia's voice - something which was not settled fact. The editor who objected, Volunteer Marek, has been involved in numerous dustups, and accused of politically-motivated activity. Should his objection to my (rather benign) edit count against me? *A similar situation happened at the Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez page, where my edits were objected to by "Tsumikiria". On Tsumikiria's homepage, they self-identified (at the time at least) as a member of antifa, which Wikipedia explains is a far-left group which occasionally engages in terrorism against civilians whose speech they disagree with. Like VolunteerMarek, Tsumikiria has also been very aggressive against any editor who does not share his far-left views. A quote used against me at the ANI actually was written by Tsumikiria in reverting an edit on the Ocasio-Cortez page: "We know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel". He wrote that. I didn't. *Another editor who was quoted as opposing my edits has a name that I can't quite remember:"snoodsngrass" or something. His name appears in the ANI slightly above mine as a possible candidate for sanction. Might that be relevant? Even more relevant would be the fact that he and I had a pleasant exchange, but Flyer22 Reborn made it sound as if he was offended by my editing. Some more examples: *Bobby Cox is a former manager of the Atlanta Braves, and a sports hero to fans of the team. Cox was once arrested for beating his wife, and pled guilty to a lower offense. I added that to the "personal" section of his article. And was immediately reverted by a self-identified fan of the Atlanta Braves. To this moment, the arrest and conviction of Cox is hidden in the midst of a long section on his "Managerial Career", and played down to sound almost meaningless. There is no mention in the "Personal" section. Am I wrong for wanting to include it? I asked for input on the Talk Page, and no one responded. *On her complaint against me regarding the Kamala Harris page, she falsely accused me of editing the page after I had reached concensus with another editor. The diffs she linked show that the opposite is true!. We worked it out to everyone's satisfaction. Her's is a very unfair accusation to make against me. *Going back to early 2018, she quoted an editor who objected to my calling Gene Lyons a "Clinton apologist". Could I have done that in a better way? Yes. But context matters. Here is the entire opener of Gene Lyons's Wikipedia page: :"Gene Lyons is an American political columnist who has defended former US President Bill Clinton." That's the whole thing. :Lyons is quoted at length on the Suicide of Vince Foster page eviscerating Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for the latter's take on the Vince Foster case. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is the International Business Editor of the Daily Telegraph, which Wikipedia identifies as a paper of record. It seemed inappropriate to have Lyons's take on Evans-Pritchard just stand alone, when the one is one of the foremost journalists in the world, and the criticism came from someone chiefly known as a Clinton defender. Undue weight problems, to out it mildly. But that is the way the Vince Foster article still has it, last I checked. Again, I'm a lot better at this Wikipedia editing thing now than I was back then, and I would certainly find a better way to phrase it now, but I was attempting to rectify a real problem in the article. *Flyer22 Reborn quotes an editor who recently objected to my characterizing a football play as a "late hit" on the Mason Rudolph page. She accurately quotes the editor: "Doesn't say 'late hit' anywhere in the NYPost citation. Please be more specific with your citations; we do read them". What Flyer22 Reborn omits is my response, where I quoted the NYPost article saying it was a late hit. Exactly as I said. That is incredibly misleading on the part of my accuser, nearly to the point of dishonesty. Furthermore. I added two more sources afterward who similarly described a late hit. Either way, Flyer22 Reborn implied that I made up information from a source, when I clearly demonstrated otherwise. *There is an article called AE911, which discusses a group of architects and engineers who believe that the World Trade Center was brought down in an implosion on 9/11, and that the government is hiding the facts from us. That is their opinion. It is certainly not mine. However, an edit I made on that page led Flyer22Reborn to falsely accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. Here is my edit: The article says that scientists "universally" accepted the official NIST findings on what happened on 9/11. I'm not a scientist, but I also agree with that view. However, "universally" is basically an impossible word to use on any occasion. There is no "universal" agreement on anything. Noting that point, I edited "universal" into something like "widespread agreement", which I still believe is the more appropriate term. Flyer22 Reborn used that edit to say that I was injecting "personal feelings" into my edit. No I wasn't. I don't agree with AE911. But they exist. If one scientist disagrees, then there no longer is "universal" agreement, obviously. *On the Michael Baden page, I noted that Baden was fired by NYC in the late 1970s. An editor objected to my use of the term "fired", and reverted me. I inserted five different reliable sources which use the term "fired" or "firing", including the court papers filed a lawsuit brought by Baden. The editor there asked me where the lawsuit used the word "fired". I never responded, partially because it was right there, and partially because there werw four other sources, and partially I just let it go, and wrote that I would keep the word "fired" out of the article in a concesssion to him. I had five reliable sources calling it a firing, I let it go anyway, and that makes me a bad guy? *Flyer22 Reborn correctly notes that I have wondered aloud whether or not she and "Crossroads" work together on edits. The one has consistently followed the other every time anything arose on the Death of JonBenét Ramsey page (and no one else shows up), both show up together at entirely unrelated pages, such as human sexuality, and one of the two wrote to me that the other would revert me if I wrote something that the first one didn't like, which is a very odd thing to claim about someone you don't know. *...And that gets into the nub of why Flyer22 Reborn brought me to ANI in the first place. She and Crossroads have assumed the role of owners and operators of the Death of JonBenét Ramsey page, automatically blocking my recent edits to the page without even looking at what I wrote. Flyer22 Reborn has continued to get a startling amount of basic information wrong in relation to that case, and has continued - along with Crossroads - to revert me constantly. Both continue to edit the article in a way which completely misrepresents the facts as reported by mainstream sources. *A) Quotes from Flyer22 Reborn: :"The fact remains that there is...no evidence for the intruder theory." Here is a partial list of RSs that say there is evidence of an intruder: *"We Have Your Daughter", book by award-winning journalist Paula Woodward. *"Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", a NYT bestseller by highly-respected journalist Lawrence Schiller. *"The Cases That Haunt Us", book by former FBI Chief Criminal Profiler John Douglas. *"Popular Crime", a 2011 book by famous author Bill James, which reports that the intruder theory is the mainstream view among those currently involved in the investigation. *"Injustice", by Dr. Robert Whitson, PhD, who was also a top officer at the Ramsey house that day. *A long 2004 article on CBS News's site, which notes that investigators are focused exclusively on the intruder theory. *A piece from ABC News, where their longtime Chief Legal Correspondent Dan Abrams said that the Ramseys were not involved. *The 2002 Michael Tracey-based documentary which was shown on British television, and later in the US. I don't have the name handy. *"The Killing of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered", A&E 2016 documentary. The documentary contains on-camera comments from Lou Smit, the homicide detective who worked the case and cleared the Ramseys, along with several detectives involved in the search for her killer, all of whom also said there was evidence of an intruder, as well as some of the world's top experts in various related fields who also cleared the Ramseys". *Another A&E documentary from 2019, whose name I don't recall, but included a different investigator who stated matter-of-factly that the evidence indisputably showed that this was committed by an intruder. And that's just a partial list, really. Next quote from Flyer22 Reborn: :"The [ransom] note mentions that [Christmas] bonus." No it doesn't. And no one has ever claimed that it does. It mentions an amount which was similar to John Ramsey's bonus of the previous year, information Ramsey's people passed on the police as a possible lead to finding the intruder. Several other possible meanings to the odd ransom demand of $118,000 were discussed in Schiller's aforementioned book, and also in Woodward's aforementioned book, and also in Whitson's aforementioned book, and elsewhere. But Flyer22 Reborn apparently believes that the ransom note directly references the prior Christmas bonus, and she removed other possible explanations placed in the article and taken from reliable sources, based upon her incorrect claim. *B) Other false or highly misleading claims in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article: ::The aforementioned Crossroads continues to put the death date as December 25th, even though the coroner's report suggests that JonBenét was killed on the 26th. ::Flyer22 Reborn continues to insert a quote from former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner into both the lede and the main text where Beckner dismisses the DNA evidence, despite the fact that Beckner almost immediately backed of the quote, and told the Denver Post that the DNA is the most important part of the case, and must be assumed to belong to the perpetrator. Flyer22 Reborn wants the first Beckner quote prominent, and the almost-complete retraction not there at all. When I inserted information from Schiller's book, the one which is widely considered the authoritative book on the case, she removed it because it conflicts with the Steve Thomas book, "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Investigation". The publisher of Thomas's book was hit with a slander lawsuit, and paid out significant damages. Yet that is the only book that Flyer22 Reborn has ever quoted as a source. Whenever I brought information from Schiller's book, or Woodward's book, she dismissed it for contradicting Thomas's book, the one that paid out for slander. On August 26th, she expressly called Woodward's book "NRS", a claim which is utterly baseless. I would have added information from some of the other sources mentioned earlier, but I would get reverted immediately after adding anything, so I never made it very far. *C) Other false bases for Flyer22 Reborn's reverting my edits: The Wikipedia article spends several sentences on the "pineapple evidence", wherein the coroner said that there "may" have been pineapple in JonBenét's digestive system. This is extremely misleading, because the follow-up lab tests showed that the pineapple was mixed with grapes and cherries, which changes the entire nature of the evidence. (This all makes sense to those familiar with the case.) Flyer22 Reborn reverted me based upon "undue material about the autopsy, again trying to cast doubt about the coroner's report". Cast doubt about the coroner's report? The report said that is looked yellowish-greenish, and might be pineapple. It wasn't a lab report. The lab report given by University of Colorado Boulder lab techs to the Boulder Police Department a year later said that it turned out to be fruit cocktail, which is what Woodward reported in "We Have Your Daughter". That is very relevant information from a RS. She reverted me because I was "trying to cast doubt" on the coroner's report", which is simply false. Actually, as mentioned, she wrote that "again" I tried to cast doubt on the coroner's report - it wasn't the first time she made a mistake about the autopsy. When I inserted information taken from the 2016 A&E documentary wherein the Boulder DA's office sent a memo to the Boulder PD saying that food can take 3-24 hours to digest, Flyer22 Reborn reverted me for the same reason - disagreeing with the coroner's report. Once again, she's wrong. The coroner's report says absolutely nothing about how long the digestion takes. The Boulder DA's office knew that, and mentioned the uncertain timeline to the Boulder PD. Once again, Flyer22 Reborn reverted me based upon a false claim. I can't link to the Coroner's Report here, for the reason I stated at the outset, but it is easily available online. There really is more to write here, and more irresponsible claims to respond to, but this is kind of ridiculously long as it is. It was my intention to write this on the ANI, but was not given the chance, so here it is. Once again, I grant that I have made mistakes, particularly earlier on in my Wikipedia life. But I would also maintain that the complaint filed at ANI is extremely distorted and wildly unfair. I would maintain that a full look at my 1504 edits - and not at the highly misleading caricature presented at the ANI - shows that I try to improve Wikipedia pages when I run into something which could use an upgrade. I am asking to be included moving forward. Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Did you read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks as advised in the block notice? I recommend you to pay special attention to the WP:NOTTHEM section. Attempting to poison the well against opponents (Volunteer Marek, Tsumikiria, Snoodgrass (? or perhaps Snooganssnoogans? I'm not sure), etc) by digging up dirt against them that is completely irrelevant to the reasons you were blocked does you no favors: "Volunteer Marek has been involved in numerous dustups, and accused of politically-motivated activity", so you don't think his objection to your edit should count against you? "Like Volunteer Marek, Tsumikiria has also been very aggressive against any editor who does not share his far-left views", and you think that's relevant? "Snoodgrass's name appears in the ANI slightly above mine as a possible candidate for sanction, might that be relevant?", No, indeed. Anybody can be taken to ANI for anything by anybody. Flyer22 Reborn gave diffs and contexts for the examples you complain about, and your pushback in this unblock request simply isn't credible. A number of admins and experienced users studied the diffs and recommended an indefinite block at ANI, calling your editing "a timesink" and "a net negative", and I'm afraid I must agree with them. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Bishonen: I have some idea of how American court rules work, but apparently none about how a Wikipedia one does. The ANI complaint against me was a combination of outdated, misleading and outright false attacks, combined with repeating claims made by other editors - without any attempt to verify those claims. In a court of law, we would call that "hearsay" and "inadmissible". Had Flyer22 Reborn written that Volunteer Marek or Tsumikiria had validity to their reverts on my edits, I would have responded to such. But she just quoted them and moved on, which suggests that all claims made by any editor must necessarily be true. I pointed out that some of the editors in question might not be the most reliable sources - proudly claiming to be part of an anarchist group (Tsumikiria) might be a bad sign, for example. Either way, I responded to the accusations, which did not focus on which editor was correct in those situations. She just listed editors who had reverted me earlier. I thought my response made sense in context. As to editors who judged her claims without reading my response? What can I say. I assumed one is allowed to defend himself around here. Apparently not? I will again point out that Flyer22 Reborn's accusations against me were very, very misleading, quotes were taken far out of context, responses were omitted, and - in some cases - her accusations were simply false. I would have thought I'd be allowed to respond with a defense before people jumped to conclusions. Vcuttolo (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I forgot to mention - I did not do any opposition research on anyone before writing my response. The only one doing that was Flyer22 Reborn in her accusations against me. What I mentioned I recited from memory. Vcuttolo (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The description in the unblock request is not only a wall of text, it is also not correct – that is, the first and only spot check I did, of the very first point (For example, the very first accusation listed against me by Flyer22 Reborn on the ANI, going back to early 2018, was when "Volunteer Marek" objected to my adding the word "allegedly" to the Dinesh D'Souza article. I added "allegedly", because the text wrote as fact - in Wikipedia's voice - something which was not settled fact. The editor who objected, Volunteer Marek, has been involved in numerous dustups, and accused of politically-motivated activity. Should his objection to my (rather benign) edit count against me?) is a misrepresentation of what actually happened in 2018 and of what the ANI report says about that incident. Part of the deleted edits discussed in the report was the addition of the word "alleged" in the middle of a direct quote that did not include that word. The first editor to revert the edits that included that (and other) changes was VolunteerMarek, who didn't pick up on the fact that "alleged" was a misrepresentation of the source, but other people did, as described in the ANI report. This appears to be completely in line with the idiosyncratic/selective interpretation of sources that's one of the core issues with your editing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you did not read what I wrote before you responded to it. I explained that I was quite limited by the situation here typing on a phone, wherein if I go away from this page, my entire comment is lost. Once I started typing, I was stuck here until I finished. As such I could not provide diffs or any other links. Furthermore, as I explained, I did not address every word that was written on the ANI. It would have been impractical, as my accuser threw everything against the wall; it took me three hours to write my response as it is. I admitted that some of the choices I made early on in my early Wikipedia days were ill-advised, and focused more on addressing fallacies in the more recent accusations. As it is, the very first accusation on the ANI was exactly what I said it was. I just checked. I couldn't check while I was writing on my Home Page. Did you expect me to commit the entire thing to memory?

Thank you for stopping by. It's always nice to see friends who are there for you when the going gets tough. Profiles in courage.

Vcuttolo (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote before I responded to it, I never claimed that I did not. However, I only checked one of your arguments in detail. "Not responding to every word" is very different from "picking and choosing some words that correspond to one's view of reality when taken out of context". That has nothing to do with diffs. Nobody expects anyone to commit everything to memory, but it is kind of a basic thing to expect that when you formulate a defense it will be based on checks of what happened. Anyway, it is rather worrying that you apparently honestly believe that your representation of the first point of the ANI which I quoted is a correct summary, since it is a blatant misrepresentation. --bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this again...

as I wrote, I was responding to the very first point she made. I explained that it was wholly unrealistic that I would reply to every bit of mud she threw, as it would have taken 20 to 30 hours (maybe more?) to respond to every sub-point within every point. As it is, I spent 3.5 hours, which is 3.5 hours of my life I'll never get back. I never claimed that I responded to the full first point of her twenty. I did respond to the very first point within Point #1. Do you understand?

Vcuttolo (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of my time as well as yours; you may use your user talk page to make unblock requests while blocked, but not really for other purposes; discussing an old unblock request is only constructive if it helps shed light on the issues involved, but this discussion does not seem to be doing that for you so I won't prolong it. --bonadea contributions talk 22:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you start? SMH

Vcuttolo (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering whether to bother to say this for a while now and decided to go ahead in the hope it will help in some way. I can't speak for Bonadea, but it seems to me the obvious reason is because they genuinely believed it would help when they started. It quickly became apparent to them it wasn't helping since you weren't understanding what they were trying to tell you. Therefore rather than continuing a fruitless discussion which was also veering into inappropriate use of your talk page. They could have just stopped responding and hoped you understood But they decided it was better to explain why they were ending the discussion, probably in the belief it would help you in some way. Unfortunately as with them starting the discussion, it doesn't seem to have worked that way, but this doesn't mean it was wrong for them to try. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thank you for reaching out. You sound like a kind and reasonable person, someone with whom it would be easy to interact. You are certainly giving the benefit of the doubt to those who never gave me the same. To be clear, the "why did you start?" question was in response to bonadea, who seemed to come here just to hassle me. Aside from that...I came to WP to make a difference. I discovered that WP is the online version of the Soviet Union. They are all in favor of the unwashed masses, as long as they can represent them from on high. Such situations invariably turn into dictatorships pretty quickly. Vcuttolo (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vcuttolo, this is not about content, it's about behaviour. Example: when you made this edit you must surely have known it would be controversial and probably reverted. It promotes a conspiracy theory as having legitimacy in a professional community, when that is simply not the case. You should have discussed it first on Talk but you did not. this is a clear attempt at framing. This appears to deny Trump's conflicts of interest, despite the fact that no reliable source disputes them. "Apparent" might have been acceptable, but framing this as an idiosyncratic view of Warren's is not.

I have reviewed a large number of your edits. You routinely make contentious and sometimes tendentious alterations to articles, often high profile biographies, without first seeking consensus and in the apparent knowledge that your changes are likely to be reverted or at least challenged. Your approach to editing can be seen in summaries such as "DO NOT REMOVE RELEVANT INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT. If one of Beckner's quotes stays, the other stays. If one goes, the other goes. Otherwise you are spreading total misinformation in Wikipedia. You have caused a lot of drama with not that many edits (1500 or so). You rarely engage on Talk, and when you do, your style is combative. You're largely responsible for two protections of the Ramsey article. In short, you give every impression of being here to Right Great Wrongs, and being extremely angry that anybody dares to dispute your exact wording in any article. Guy (help!) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG and Guy:

First of all, thank you for reaching out. I appreciate all true attempts at dialogue.

The accusations against me at the ANI painted a not-very pretty picture, but also a very distorted one. As I noted in an earlier response above, it has become clear that on WP the accused are guilty until proven innocent; I never got the opportunity to point out how wildly distorted the accusations against me were.

You raised four specific examples. Let me address them in order:

1. "Universal" acceptance of NIST's findings

This may surprise you, but I absolutely did not expect that edit would be controversial at all, and I have no idea to this moment why it would be. Accompanying my edit, I explained "'universal' is a big term", and if there is one scientist who disagrees, then it's overwhelming agreement, but not universal. Am I wrong? Does anyone disagree with the definition of universal? Or does anyone believe there is not a single scientist in AE911 or elsewhere who disagrees with NIST's findings?

The "universal" kerfuffle is a perfect example of a false accusation against me. It was used as evidence that a)I hold conspiracy theories, and b)I push my viewpoint into articles. Surprise! I do NOT agree with the 9/11 conspiracy theories whatsoever. (As such, the edit would be an example of my inserting the existence of an opinion with which I disagree.) I watched a one hour AE911 video because someone on YouTube asked me to, trying to convince me of their ideas. In that I have open mind, I agreed to watch the video. Afterward, I wanted to see what the other side had to say, as instinctively AE911's arguments made little sense to me, so I went to the WP article, where I stumbled into the word "universal". I don't see how the term "universal agreement" can ever be accurately used, in any context, unless we are describing universal agreement within a small, countable group of people.

2. Media Matters for America

is a group whose aim is to destroy the reputations of prominent conservatives in the media. It was started and is still run by David Brock, who grew up liberal, angrily changed to the conservative side at Berkeley (and lied about why he did), wrote extremely controversial articles and books attacking the left, was villified from the left about it and routinely described as distorting or lying, then angrily switched back to the left (and lied about why he did), admitted to lying while on the right, then began Media Matters to attack conservatives.

David Brock is not a serious person.

I read an article online years ago, which alas I cannot link to here, named (IIRC) "David Brock, Liar". It was written by a moderate on the left, who made the rather strong case IMO that Brock is not a coservative liar or a liberal liar, but just a liar, and should be trusted by no one.

Marc Morano is hardly my cup of tea. That said, "Media Matters for America" is hardly a reputable source. I question if they should be quoted at all on Wikipedia. In fact I have frequently seen the group's assessments inserted regarding members of the right, no context given.

The name "Media Matters for America" gives no hint as to the political leanings of the group, and certainly not to its checkered history. If there is a withering assessment of a conservative given by "Democratic Party spokesperson So And So", then I would think that no explanation need be given.

Let's put it this way: On how many Wikipedia pages are people on the left critiqued by Turning Point USA? And if they are, would TPUSA not be accurately described as a)conservative, and b)Not reliable as a source? TPUSA should not be quoted to critique liberals, and MMA shouldn't be critiquing conservatives, and certainly not without a better explanation of their perspective than their (presumably intentionally) vanilla names imply.

So while I added context as to the nature of "Media Matters for America", the truth IMO is that their "Climate Denier of the Year" award (or whatever it was) really deserves no mention in a WP article.

3. Trump's "conflicts of interest"

I was taught earlier on in my WP life by another editor to be very careful not to put opinions into WP's voice. The Elizabeth Warren article says that Trump engaged in conflicts of interest. In a fair WP, that description would be put in her voice, not WP's.

Let me point out that I am decidedly not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him. But unless a court of law rules that Trump engaged in conflicts of interest, there is no way - according to WP's rules - that an unproven allegation should be stated as fact in WP's voice. Does Trump engage in conflicts of interest? Seems obvious to me. But the article doesn't say "according to Elizabeth Warren and VCuttolo, Trump violated conflict of interest provisions".

Let's put it this way. Would a WP article say in WP's voice that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? I hope not. I know he did, you know he did, but that doesn't matter in this context.

4. Death of JonBenét Ramsey article

And this is where things blew up, and one of the two editors who teamed up to oppose me got angry enough to bring me to ANI and get me banned.

Seeing that one quote where I wrote an entire sentence in caps, without understanding the entire context, tells something close to 1% of the story.

In late August, I discovered that the Death of JonBenét Ramsey page was written in a way which rather obviously leaned in the direction of the "Steve Thomas" view of the case. The problem is that Steve Thomas's view has been largely discredited; there are a number of RS books, and articles, documentaries, and even a Federal Court ruling which lean heavily toward the innocence of the family; in some cases, they outright state the family innocent.

Thomas's book contains a startling number of errors - not in my opinion, but according to RSs. His publisher was sued on the basis of the book slandering the Ramsey family, and paid out a significant sum of money in order to settle.

This is not exactly a close call.

And I was not trying to remove the Thomas view, but to frame it as the alternative view, not the mainstream one. The two editors who opposed me wanted it the other way around, but both are woefully underinformed about the Ramsey case.

The two editors who opposed me there appeared to be working in concert; they certainly had identical opinions. I would add something for balance, and immediately be reverted for Reason X. So I would change the edit to accomodate Reason X, and be reverted for Reason Y. So I would change it again to accomodate Reason Y, and be reverted for Reason Z. This happened repeatedly.

On the rare occasion that I could get an edit to stick, Flyer22 Reborn, the main thorn in my side there, would add a bunch of quotes from people that no one ever heard of, taken from a questionable source (a supermarker magazine with no bylines), to offset my edits.

What happened most recently was that I used information from the website of an Emmy- and Edward R. Murrow- winning reporter, Paula Woodward, only to be explicitly told that I could take information from her book, but not her website. Okay, so I bought her book and inserted the information as instructed, only to be reverted anyway, without explanation. That is amazingly unfair, and highly frustrating.

At times, Flyer22 Reborn would give explanations that were flat-out wrong. As she wrote on the ANI, she believed that I was "casting aspersions" (something like that) on the coroner's report, which only served to underlie how badly she misunderstands the basic facts of the case.

That nonsense was going on (on-and-off) for months: I tried to work with those two editors and edit as per their specifications, only to have them change their minds once I did so. This was Lucy and the football.

I notice that Flyer22 Reborn forgot to link to the times they told me off angrily, or to the times they reverted me without explanation.

"In short, you give every impression of being here to Right Great Wrongs, and being extremely angry that anybody dares to dispute your exact wording in any article." You would think so reading the ANI. In fact I reacted badly to being treated badly. I admit that at times I lost my cool. But I did so when, instead of experiencing collaborative editing, I was reverted wholesale for no obvious reason.

In one example given on the ANI, I went back-and-forth with an editor on the Kamala Harris page as to how Harris's relationship with Willie Brown should be described. I conceded the point, and that was that. Flyer22 Reborn falsely wrote that I made an edit afterward nonetheless. The timestamp on the diffs shows that accusation to be false.

Otherwise, she never included the many times that I worked with other editors to reach a conclusion, obviously. She did include every accusation she could find against me, without bothering to find out if the accusations had any validity. For example, the Mason Rudolph page, where someone asked me where my given source said that Myles Garrett hit Rudolph "late", adding (paraphrasing) "we do read those [sources], you know". But Flyer22 Reborn failed to note that I responded by providing the sentence where my source called it a late hit. Might be relevant?

Or the Michael Baden page, where Baden was fired by NYC Mayor Ed Koch. An editor disliked the term "fired", although his complaint didn't really add up. I provided five RSs that used the word "fired" or "firing" - then decided to drop it and leave the word "fired" out of the article anyway! I did not keep pushing it; I offered a compromise, the other editor did not respond, and I figured it was settled at that point.

So no, I did not get "extremely angry" every time my "exact wording" wasn't used. I at times got extremely frustrated when I worked hours on a single edit to get it exactly right according to others' specifications, only to get it reverted wholesale nonetheless.

Thank you again for reaching out.

Vcuttolo (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vcuttolo. I declined your unblock request. If you think I was wrong, the sensible thing to do is not to argue at length with people who come here, but to post another unblock request, for the attention of another admin. I should warn you, though: if your next request is as long as your first, or even as long as your post above, admins may refuse to read it. Admins are volunteers just like you. Please summarize. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:

Yeah, I kind of got the impression that you didn't read my full response. Considering the length of the ANI accusations against me, how would I keep my response short? I really would appreciate if you could let me know that.

I don't think it is fair to classify all my interactions here as arguments. Some editors seemingly came here to hassle me, and I didn't appreciate them piling on. If you read the discussions through, you will see a couple of positive interactions included.

Thank you for your advice. It appears clear to me that you commented here for the right reasons.

Vcuttolo (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read your full unblock request. If I wasn't up for reading it, I wouldn't have dealt with it. Again, please read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Carefully. I really don't get the impression that you read it before your original unblock request. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:

I certainly read the WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I still have no idea how to respond to a 5,000 word accusation in two paragraphs or less.

Your unspecific reply to my unblock request led me to believe that you hadn't quite read it, but I believe you if you say otherwise. I have yet to see anyone here acknowledge that my accuser made a number of false claims against me, and repeated some more made by others.

Thank you.

Vcuttolo (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In yet another example of Vcuttolo's spin, I checked the Michael Baden article he cites above. Vcuttolo claims that an editor did not respond, when in fact the editor did respond and asked for a specific line in the reference Vcuttolo made that used the word "fired" as Vcuttolo claimed. Vcuttolo was the one who did not respond, and after reading the entire reference--which was used as a primary source--I find that the term "fired" does not appear, even though Vcuttolo claimed it did. Pushing the onus on other editors, falsely, continues to be Vcuttolo's modus operandi (along with ongoing comparisons to the Soviet Union). This does not make WP better, and it begs the question as to why Vcuttolo visits WP other than to cast aspersions on editors. Ipanemo (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipanemo brings several allegations against me. He has a partial point regarding one of them, and is obviously wrong about the rest.

I Googled "Baden vs. Koch", and found an immediate reference to Baden's being fired. In that I had numerous other sources which used the term "fired", I did not look too carefully, otherwise I would have noticed that it was a different court ruling, "Batterton vs. Texas General Land Office" which used the term "fire" in relation to its summation of the court's ruling in Baden vs. Koch. And I quote,

"In Baden v. Koch, 638 F.2d 486 (2nd Cir.1980), for example, considering the assertion that an informal understanding between the mayor of New York and the city's chief medical examiner prevented the mayor from exercising his statutory authority to fire the examiner at will, the Second Circuit held that a mutual understanding cannot create a property interest contrary to state law. See id. at 492-93." (emphasis added)

Again, there were four other sources besides the legal one. It was a different court summarizing Baden as being "fired", but a court did summarize it that way, and that would represent a very optional fifth source anyway.

Ipanemo misunderstands everything else I wrote. I did not claim that the other editor and I were never in disagreement about which term to use regarding Baden's termination. I wrote that once I substituted a different term ("removal") for the dreaded "f" word, I did not hear back at the Baden page, and therefore concluded that all was well. Again, I left the text of the article, because of the objections of the other editor, without the word "fire" or "fired" or "firing" anywhere in sight. At which time I appeared to have satisfied the other editor.

Ipanemo's ad hominem implication about why I came to edit WP in the first place is obviously off base. He should be careful not to slander people. 1500 edits may be a small number compared to other editors, but the dominant number of changes I inserted were not controversial at all. And even the ones where I encountered disagreement, it is quite the leap in logic to assume I made edits in bad faith. My intention was to improve the encyclopedia. What Ipanemo's intentions are would represent speculation on my part.

Vcuttolo (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on engaging in this. I merely point out that Vcuttolo's sources and edits are not always vetted ("I did not look too carefully, otherwise I would have noticed"), yet he nonetheless uses them as attacks on other editors when it is pointed out he is mistaken. He has just demonstrated this. None of it is the hallmark of a good editor. I have nothing more to add. Like other editors, I just realized that this is not going to be a worthwhile discussion. Ipanemo (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a court describing Baden vs. Koch as a firing, but it was a different court describing it. It wasn't overly relevant because I had four other reliable sources using the word firing. But you distort the whole thing in your attempts to pile on. And ignore all the parts that you got wrong. How convenient.

Vcuttolo (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I also should have pointed out to you, Ipanemo, that quoting the first third of one sentence of one example in my explanation without context, or even - at a minimum - an ellipsis, further shows that you have no interest in facts, just in giving me a hard time. If you take a few words out of context, one can make anyone look bad. But why would you want to? Nothing better to do? (Obviously you ignored nearly everything I wrote, cherrypicking one example of many, and then distorting both the quotation and the context in that one example.) Find something better to do with your time.

Vcuttolo (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/12/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-killed/index.html

[2] ttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/12/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-killed/index.html

[3] ttps://freebeacon.com/national-security/ocasio-cortez-compares-hamas-rioters-gaza-west-virginia-teachers-strike/amp/

[1]

[2]

[3]