User talk:JCN0001

January 2019
Your recent edits to Timothy M. Dolan could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. You need to discuss this issue on the article's talk page or you will be blocked in short order. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of fact based content
Content was removed with obvious bias on the part of the user with deletion privileges. Comment was in no way a threat towards the deleter - simply informing the user current investigations into the archdiocese of NY, especially Cardinal Dolan, are considering such actions of obstruction as part of their investigation into the suppression of facts concerning the abuse scandal in New York. JCN0001 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, and in violation of policy. In no way is any Wikipedian legally vulnerable for removing questionable content from an article. You are not allowed to make threats or intimate legal responsibility. I am not against the content you want to post, but you need to discuss your disagreement at Talk:Timothy M. Dolan, especially in view of WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. We're not going to long tolerate your misbehavior. I understand you're new and don't understand our methods here at Wikipedia, but you need to take my warning seriously. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Cardinal Dolan content
Discussion moved to Admin for further review JCN0001 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Timothy M. Dolan; 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: 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. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Continued deletion of fact based content
As mentioned, I have shared with the Admins your continued deletion of fact based content. We can work towards a resolution via the Admin channel in time. However, I strongly encourage you to stop deleting this content during the review process, given your obvious bias and questionable editorial decisions concerning this page. JCN0001 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. 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:.  Sandstein  16:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is based on the following message by you to WP:AN: "Editor threatened to block me after I informed him deleting the section again would give the appearance of obstruction of justice, especially given the current investigations of the archdiocese of New York by multiple law enforcement agencies". Obstruction of justice is a felony. Accusing editors of felonies is a legal threat.  Sandstein  16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , there is an even clearer legal threat in this editor's edit summary at Timothy M. Dolan: "Previous deletion of this passage was most certainly a violation of editorial privileges on the part of the deleting party - and of it happens again I will inform law enforcement of the circumstances of this thread as well as the username and identifying information" Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

To recap:

I added a section to Cardinal Dolan’s page given the article recently published in The New York Times titled “After 2 Abuse Settlements, Why Is This Priest Still Saying Mass?”

Editor willsome429 decided to delete this content without any attempt to edit, add, or correct the entry. My note to him relates to the fact Cardinal Dolan has been known to suppress such facts and stories which demonstrate his negligent handling of abusive priests in the archdiocese of New York. This behavior on the part of Cardinal Dolan is very much the focus of current investigations into Cardinal Dolan and the archdiocese of New York, and these entities need to be made aware of any instance which might imply his obstructions. My comment was in no way a legal threat against the editor or Wikipedia.

Two additional links from the New York Times were added to the content which demonstrate little to no substantiation of abusive priests has occurred in the archdiocese of New York since 2002, and in the coming year, this particular page will most certainly require updates concerning facts to come.

I also feel the need to express that I am an victim of sexual abuse by a priest in the archdiocese of New York. It should not be the position of an editor of Wikipedia to intimidate victims of sexual abuse - which is why I should be unblocked and the content allowed to remain.

JCN0001 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat
Again, the legal threat was not aimed at the editor - it is aimed at Cardinal Dolan given his reputation for suppressing content at the heart of this thread. Law enforcement, as well as myself, would have zero interest against the editor - but how Cardinal Dolan goes about concealing his frauds are very much of interest to many people. Given the editor is catholic, assistance is always appreciated when it comes to protecting children from sexual abuse at the hands of clergy. JCN0001 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary at Timothy M. Dolan, you quite clearly directed a legal threat at a specific editor: "Previous deletion of this passage was most certainly a violation of editorial privileges on the part of the deleting party - and of it happens again I will inform law enforcement of the circumstances of this thread as well as the username and identifying information" (my bolding). Such threats are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. If you wish to be unblocked you will have to retract all your threats, and frankly, you are not helping your case by giving a reason for your unblock that intimates the block was done to intimidate victims of sexual abuse. If you are unblocked, the place to discuss your edit is at Talk:Timothy M. Dolan, not in edit summaries and minus attacks on other editors. I strongly suggest you follow the advice of which he has given you above.Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply to retract statement
The passage you keep referencing most certainly is not a legal threat towards the editor - and I highly advise you to carefully read my statement once again. It is my understanding your primary language is not English, which is why it’s important you reread the statement with added concentration.

I feel it’s best to let another admin consider unblocking me moving forward  - deleting the original content, blocking me, and your statement concerning my abuse - are common cognitive distortions of an expected sex offender. Certainly, facsism has no place on Wikipedia. JCN0001 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that you have now turned to attacking an editor (I'm not sure which one, but that doesn't matter) with "...deleting the original content, blocking me, and your statement concerning my abuse - are common cognitive distortions of an expected sex offender", I have now removed your ability to edit this talk page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked Status
By all means - please do keep me blocked moving forward. Given my experiences with certain members of this site, contacting the appropriate investigators seems completely appropriate and necessary at this point. However, an Admin is free to unblock this account at their own discretion moving forward. It is important to note Catholics suppressing entries on this site related to negligent bishops and abusive priests is a newsworthy story in itself, and this behavior is certainly outside the mission of Wikipedia. JCN0001 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please revoke talk page access. I see only continued legal threats like the above "contacting the appropriate investigators seems completely appropriate and necessary at this point" and other ad hominem arguments. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)