Well I see it as a mixed bag. I'm in complete agreement with you during the first long phase before a nitrite spike has been established - water changes during that phase will just slow things down and rarely provide any help for anything. Also, I agree that even in the second phase, during the nitrite spike, a water change can take up to two days to "recover" from and have the cycle growth get back in motion, so they are not to be taken too lightly from a speed-of-cycle standpoint.
I was recommending however that Tuppers get some more stats of that high nitrite on the books first and if we saw 3 or 4 (this would be a couple days, assuming hes doing stats twice per 24 hour period) of these 110+ nitrate(NO3) readings, then a waterchange would be in order on the basis of Hovanec's concern that both high nitrates and/or very high nitrites(NO2) can cause the N-Bac growth to stall.
So I completely agree with you that unneccessary water changes should be avoided during fishless cycling. But I've come to feel that during the second phase, the "kickstart" effect of a large water change when nitrites and/or nitrates are high and a good gravel clean stirs these substances out into the outgoing water, will often have a salutary effect on the cycle, despite the brief pause it causes just due to the fact that water changes always cause a pause (in other words, I feel there is a bigger potential growth speedup after the pause.)
~~waterdrop~~
ps. [I even have a pet theory (unsupported) that for some reason nitrates(NO3) in particular want to somehow "hang low" in the filter and gravel more so than nitrites and especially more so than ammonia. Have you ever noticed how a first water change will drop ammonia more effectively than nitrate(NO3)? It often seems a second or even third water change can be needed when someone (a fishless cycler) is trying to get rid of NO3. So I have this theory that somehow it distributes itself in a non-even dispersal, making it possibly even more effective at slowing N-Bac development.]