User talk:AOKuneff

Discussion Welcome
I am frustrated when people revert edits I make without first discussing it. Discussions here as well as in the relevant article's talk page are always welcome. Cheers! AOKuneff (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts
--Neutralitytalk 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your editing
Please review the following pages: Edit warring; Fringe theories, and Biographies of living persons. Do not repeatedly restore, on spurious grounds, challenged edits. That behavior is not acceptable. --Neutralitytalk 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As said previously on this page, I am frustrated when people revert edits I make without first discussing it. You have been pinged here -- Talk:Comet_Ping_Pong. As per WP:RS, the mentioned source is a first party source, and since no 3rd party source exists with that claim, the claim that DC Metro Police has debunked pizzagate should not be added to wikipedia AOKuneff (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of a primary source is acceptable to source statements and actions by the producer of the source. In this case, we have a primary source from DCMPD that says Pizzagate is a fictitious conspiracy theory. We may use that source to say “The DCMPD says Pizzagate is fictitious.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NBSB - you edit warred me Without any sources. Now, you claim your first party source doesn't need to be a third party source. You lack credibility. Either way, talk here -- Talk:Comet_Ping_Pong and don't be optically blind. AOKuneff (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an acceptable edit summary, especially on a talkpage plagued by conspiracy theories. Repeating the same thing just above is equally problematic.The Metropolitan Police are a perfectly good source for what the Metropolitan Police say. If you edit war to remove that plain statement, you will face sanctions.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Laundering a plain statement through third party sources is not required in a case like this, but: CBC, the Guardian , Ohio State University , the MPD again ("a fictitious online conspiracy theory") , the wire service reporting that MPD statement , Washington Post . Now stop trying to omit material that disproves a defamatory hoax.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick question
Which of these three words best describes your stance on Pizzagate or its general ideas: "debunked," "unproven," "plausible," or "reality"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly. However, the important point made is that Metro DC Police has not issued sufficient statements for wikipidiens to claim they have debunked it. Frankly, the obsessive editing by people who do not want discussion of the issue is pushing me from "unproven" to "plausible". You seem to be a bit more thoughtful. Although we disagree, you haven't banned anyone nor closed discussions AOKuneff (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was asking because if you said anything short of "debunked," I was planning to block you on grounds of WP:CIR, because the conspiracy theory is InfoWars levels of wrong. Also, I find it interesting that this (currently blocked) IP could only make the same arguments you do, had the same reaction you do to discussions being closed, basically acted like you -- happens geolocates to New York. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm User:158.106.215.138, and I am in Manhattan. He geolocates to Brooklyn.. AOKuneff (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being unable to recognize that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is obviously false, which indicates that you lack certain competencies necessary to handle articles affected by the following policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. 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:. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "technical evidence". I am not the same user as DouggCousins. AOKuneff (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have made edits from the same IP address. The specific technical details will not be shared publicly in accordance with the WMF's privacy policy. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems unlikely.. Maybe we've interacted without knowing? How many edits are you talking about? AOKuneff (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite understanding how DouggCousins and I could have made edits from the same IP; however, each of the IPs listed at DouggCousins' profile has had their edits deleted on grounds of sockpuppetry. Does checkuser data link these accounts to either myself or DouggCouns? Please confirm AOKuneff (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize editing wikipedia can be a thankless job, but the fact that other users' posts were deleted solely on suspicion of being either myself or User:DouggCousins means this information should be verified.. Please indicate if you have technical data linking me or User:DouggCousins to User:216.130.236.20, User:172.58.227.5, User:2600:1002:b01c:765b:ec7b:235e:9217:524e and User:69.200.249.164 AOKuneff (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)