Talk:Carmine Agnello

Untitled

Looks like he was arrested again in Cleveland. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/former_gambino_crime_family_me.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.206.100 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2018 changes

ThePlane11 made some edits to the article on July 6, 2018, which I reverted with edit summaries included. Rather than discussing the matter on the talk page, the editor restored them. Among their changes was removing the well-written, standard lead which had been in place for many years and replacing it with one that included his former family relationship (son-in-law) to John Gotti. On Wikipedia, notability is not inherited; therefore, the Gotti connection should not be included in the lead but rather in the body only. Also, while the fact the Agnello paid for a girl's funeral in Cleveland may be interesting enough for inclusion in a newspaper, it is not encylopedic. The editor not only restored it, but did so in a completely unrelated section (Scrapyard Operation) even though the edit summary explained it. Finally, any new content added needs to be reliably sourced. The editor should gain consensus from other editors before restoring any of the content. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

ThePlane11 has restarted edit-warring, and continues to disregard clear edit summaries or implies that (s)he does not to understand them. Among them, the editor restored content about the arrest in a New York incident of Agnello's son, Carmine Gotti Agnello, which of course does not belong in his father's bio. Previously, ThePlane also added negative content about the son regarding an Ohio incident the father was involved in, even though the son was never even mentioned in the source. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User has said along the lines that revision has been done before while there is no such evidence that such discussion took place on the talk page. He also mentioned that Carmine Agnello's son's were not included in the arrest, and then when I provided proof that his son was arrested in relation to the scrapyard operation, he changed his story to "it is not his son's biography". I almost forgot that he ALSO said the story with covering the funeral expenses of a murdered black child was a "local story" and then I proved him wrong once again with sources from major news companies. If other users could weigh in here then I'll wait to revert edits. Thanks. ThePlane11 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I have been covering organized crime topics on Wikipedia and have made some severe changes with valued importance such as updating the administration of certain New York crime families i.e. the Gambino crime family, which I might add was not updated for around 8 years, and I have been working extensively on the 'government witnesses and informants' section on several American Mafia family pages. ThePlane11 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This thread began July 10, 2018, yet you chose to ignore it until July 28, 2018. I would also refer you to the long edit history of this article to educate yourself on content agreements. You need to either stop pretending to misunderstand simple edit summaries, or work on your reading comprehension skills. You first included content about the son regarding the father's Ohio incident, even though the son was not even mentioned in the source. After that was clearly explained to you and the conent was removed, you then added content that was solely about the son's New York arrest. You were counseled again and told that this is Carmine Agnello's biography and, therefore, content like that about his son's life does not belong in the father's bio. But none of this needs to be expalined to you because it appears you are purposely twisting the obvious facts, as your history shows you've done with many other editors. Regarding Agnello paying for someone's funeral, you need to learn the difference between content that receives newspaper coverage versus content that meets the much higher standard of being encylopedic. Only a very small percentage of stories covered in newspapers or magazines, etc. are important enough to be included in an enyclopedia. The bottom line is this: just because something is sourced does not at all mean that it belongs in an encylopedia. An enyclopedia has a much higher standard for inclusion. Putting aside people's allegations that it was a PR stunt, Angello paying for a non-notable person's funeral does not at all meet the enyclopedic standard. Finally, you said, "I have been covering organized crime topics on Wikipedia and have made some severe changes...". For the record, we are editors, not reporters. We do not cover topics; we edit them. And we do not make "severe changes"; we make careful changes that improve articles and are in line with the project's policies and guidelines. You also said, "I'll wait to revert edits". That's not how it works. When you add content and then another editor(s) provides a good-faith objection and removes it, you must then gain a proper consensus in order to reinsert it. Otherwise, you are edit-warring. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for areas that interest you, you need to work cooperatively with others and follow editing protocols so that you do not continue to receive warnings and blocks. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Inexplicable 2017 plea deal

In July 2015, Agnello was arrested in Cleveland, Ohio on charges of theft, money laundering, and conspiracy, as well as drugging his own race horses with performance-enhancing drugs. He operated a $3 million stolen car and scrap metal scam at his scrapyard in Cleveland. In 2017, he accepted a plea deal.

That sweetheart plea deal is inexplicable on the facts given. It amounts to barely a traffic ticket in this line of work, for a felon of his reputation. Either the case must have been extremely weak, or the prosecutor's knees must have been greased or knocked together. The only thing that made any sense in the associated citation is that the prosecutor's office refused to make a public statement after cutting the deal.

And if the $180,000 hadn't actually lead to charges, who pays then? The public purse. So by no means did they recoup the cost of the investigation once you factor in the uncertainties of the final outcome. Heads you lose everything, tails you get most of your money back. Nice wager. — MaxEnt 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)