User talk:VeritasVincitUSA

Welcome!

Hello, VeritasVincitUSA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hugh (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello there. I saw the log and just wanted to follow and double-check on whether you wanted User:Kochtruth/sandbox restored and moved here. I can't guarantee someone else won't want it deleted for some other reason but as I offered before, just ask. Otherwise, good luck and sorry for any stress I may have caused you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682: no need to apologize or restore the sandbox. I appreciate the feedback that I got on my original submission from other editors, like Capitalismojo, and believe that the final version that I will be merging with the main Koch Industries page (from talk) is superior to what I was editing in the sandbox. If anything, I should apologize for not being aware of the strong preference on Wikipedia for secondary source media citations relative to authoritative primary source documents from government agencies. VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should never apologize for not knowing the intricacies of this place. At long as you learn, that's all that's needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VeritasVincitUSA, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! VeritasVincitUSA, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with this website: Kochtruths.com

Your recent proposed edits look very similar to the items listed here. Your original user name also rings of the website. The association is allowed but if true please declare it. http://kochtruths.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Springee: my proposed edits look nothing like that site and I am not affiliated. Yet again, you choose to make spurious allegations rather than focusing on the facts described in the proposed edits, and the authoritative sources that substantiate every one of them. I have not indulged in anything resembling the bizarre conspiracy theories on that site; I would encourage you not to do so either. Coupled with your frivolous "sockpuppet" allegation, and prior insinuations regarding my motives, I am tempted to escalate this to an administrative complaint. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because I came across that site when looking for information on the pipeline explosion we have been discussing. The sockpuppet investigation was legitimate and even you admit I was correct, that was your old account name. I asked this question here because I did not want to have it on the talk page since it was not related to the article. Since you have said there is no association I won't assume otherwise. I apologize as the way I worded the above does sound more like an accusation than the question I meant it to be. Springee (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personhood

Since this conversation has taken a turn away from article content, I'll continue on your talk page. After reviewing your comments, certain statements you've made like "We propose" or "We accept" or "Our username was 'Kochtruth'" strongly point to the conclusion, IMHO, that the views expressed in your username's edits are not (or have not been) the views of one particular individual, but of multiple people, and therefore are not allowed under WP:ROLE. If this is in fact the case, perhaps you could ask an admin about how to proceed. Perhaps the creation of a new username, or pledge to operate the account by a single person? I'm not really sure. If there is some other explanation, I apologize for my imprudence in missing it.

Whatever the case may be, I think some of your proposals may be of value to the article, and plan to respond to them shortly. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that this represents yet another departure from discussing the underlying sources and facts, and represents yet another attack on me personally. As you might imagine from my deep knowledge of the subject matter, I did not come by the knowledge in a vacuum and have extensively discussed the various sources and facts with others. It was wrong of me to represent myself as the vehicle for expressing the "off-Wikipedia consensus" (hence "we") of people that I have talked with. Only one person (me) has operated this account; that is a fact that can probably be confirmed by an administrator. I have no intention of sharing this account or letting anybody else access it. As per WP:ROLE, "account information is forever limited to one individual" (me). - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...So when you refer to your username as "our" username, you're just expressing some type of moral solidarity with the peers/colleagues you've spoken to about the matter?

And again, that fact that this matter doesn't relate to article content is the reason why I've chosen to discuss it here rather than on the article's talk page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal "association", "entity", or "organization" that I was speaking for, if that is what you are again insinuating. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how my participation on Wikipedia now consists almost entirely of defending myself against spurious personal attacks, and there is hardly any engagement with the sources and facts I posted... - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That tends to happens when you decide to suddenly come in and jump into extremely controversial topics with a possible agenda and say that everyone who disagrees with you is "whitewashing" the article. It's called WP:BOOMERANG because it happens enough for people to start paying attention. If you can comment on content and not on the editors, it will not be a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't insinuating anything. I said precisely what I meant to say: that I find it almost inconceivable that someone would refer to their personal username which they are operating independently and whose edits reflect that individual's points of view alone, as "our username". And that if that weren't in fact the case, there would probably be ways to remedy it.

From what I can see, the personal attacks you speak of have mostly been editors informing you of policies which you were in clear or possible violation of, and offering various remedies to help rectify those problems. Perhaps the issue is that the problems with you have been much more conspicuous and easily remedied than the problems with your proposals - which again - are currently being reviewed, and will probably eventually be incorporated into the article in some form or another. Thank you, genuinely, for your efforts in working on them.

And no, I don't think it's funny. You are correct in your implication that it's an absolute waste of time for everyone who's here trying to improve content. But there's a learning curve, and everyone understands that. It's good form to be patient while learning the ropes and not take ownership of an article and make demands of everyone right off the bat. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to who I am, I cannot be more specific for the reason outlined in the Koch Industries talk thread. I understand your skepticism about the mixed pronoun use; it is not unreasonable given my anonymity. However, there is no formal organization behind this account or my attempts to shed light on the Kochs, and I am the only person who has accessed this account.

I apologize if I came on too strong. However, I'm sure you can understand my frustration, seeing the significant problems with the current article and, from the very beginning, dealing with constant insinuations regarding my POV, motives, etc. rather than a specific and thorough discussion of the facts and sources that I presented. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is your right as well. WP:OUTING is a policy too. AdventurousSquirrel, I think the accusations all around can be dropped at this point, be it about VeritasVincitUSA or any alleged "whitewashing" (or "blackwashing") of the article. Anything more can be brought up at WP:COIN but I think it's better for everyone to go back to a content discussion. As frustrating as the discussion at Talk:Koch Industries looks (to every party I mean), it's been civil and relatively calm in that way. Plus I always say that the best test of your belief is to be challenged on them voraciously. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are Kochs

Your "not a formal organization" group wikipedia account is inappropriate, even if only only member of the group (you say) is accessing it. It's exactly like a corporate account. We don't let corporations set up as editors, nor do we let school classes or groups. That's the deal.

Your personal attacks are flat wrong and unsupported. I expect an apology. It is the only decent thing to do. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo, the circumstantial evidence against some of the others (particularly Arthur Rubin and AdventurousSquirrel) goes back YEARS and is quite convincing. It is possible that you somehow just walked into the wrong place at the wrong time, while exhibiting behavior superficially consistent with the others, but I am right to be suspicious. I would be willing to concede that point in your specific case, and offer you (and only you) that defense if there are formal disciplinary proceedings initiated.

With respect to the account, I suggest you read WP:ROLE; this account, since its inception, has been associated with a single named user (me) and only accessed by that single named user. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job of exposing the whitewashing, this is going viral. Popish Plot (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The DailyKos article is a serious concern in regarding to our policies about WP:Harassment. Possible conflict of interest concerns do not trump potential harassment issues. Your refusal to acknowledge or discuss those concerns and instead repeated battleground fighting over the articles shows a lack of concern over the larger issues here. If you are connected to the DailyKos article, you have a perfect way to advocate for your cause [[but not Wikipedia is not it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Koch

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Koch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Koch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Koch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop sockpuppeting

You appear to be creating multiple accounts to continue this abuse ( D. H. Koch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ). Please stop that. You're way outside the bounds of reasonable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not me! I have not made any edits since the block was imposed (except this talk page reply). - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee procedure for the removal of withdrawn arbitration case requests, the Koch Industries Reputation Management is declined as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]