User talk:Kochtruth

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kochtruth. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Hugh (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Kochtruth, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I've indefinitely blocked this name as it is a violation of our username policy. Assuming the name isn't merely intended to provoke an emotional reaction, the name (especially when you are creating drafts like User:Kochtruth/sandbox and edits like this) make it clear that harmonious editing with you will be difficult if not or impossible so pick another name. I have a half a mind to delete your sandbox page right now so it's one chance to see if you're here with at least an intent to pretend to be a neutral mature individual who will treat other opinions with respect or a partisan individual who no one else should waste time on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I deleted the sandbox. I don't want to end up forgetting it and it looks like you already attempted to insert it into the article so it wasn't really a sandbox to create a different article and we don't need parallel duplicate article sections but if you want it back, just change the name, ping my talk page and I'll restore it and move it myself. It should not be difficult to find another name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete a new user's sandbox? Hugh (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explained above. If you're trying to include it in the article, it's not a needed sandbox and it may or may not be a BLP issue but the user can set up a new name in five minutes, ping me, and I'll restore it all. I have no opinion about the content. That's presuming it's someone serious about editing here. If it's the type of person who creates the name Kochtruth, wants to insert that text, when its removed goes to the talk page to complain, doesn't respond and won't even make up a new name that's isn't argumentative, how much longer will they last and why have I already ten times as much time with them than would be solved if they just picked a new name? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the explanation above. OK, the content of the sandbox was identical to the content at the article? The new user lost no work? But why delete it? Hugh (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy WP:BADNAME recommends not biting newcomers, and talking to the user. Did you try that before your block? No one thought the username was offensive enough to ask them about it or report it. Hugh (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this user plenty of leeway. As I said, I assume this wasn't just trolling or a WP:NOTHERE problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"leeway" I don't understand. What do you mean "plenty of leeway"? This user was a member of our community for all of 30 hours. When did you have a chance to give plenty of leeway? Plenty of leeway, like, bro, no one is gonna take you seriously with that username, it's a problem for us, please can you change it? recalcitrent? ask for a deadline to change the name, leeway like that? Hugh (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume..." Please with your patience may we examine that assumption for a bit. I am familiar with Koch Industries, from my readings in support of my editing, and with our article on the subject, and I know our article to be grossly, absurdly non-neutral, particulalry in the light of the copious reliable sources on their regulatory history, but I can't edit everything. I need not explain which direction I mean when I say non-neutral. The article is so bad that we should expect some general public reasonably well-informed readers would laugh or alternately get angry at our project. The article is objectively so bad that it is also perfectly reasonable that eventually a reader would see our "anyone can edit" shtick and take it seriously and register and try to fix it. Hugh (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, take it to ANI. I doubt you'll get a lot of sympathy there. Anything more from me and I'll probably block you and regret myself in the morning. I think I've had three, maybe four, people calling for me to be banned or desysopped this month so look up the archives if you want to get a gang together. Feel free to email the editor if they set up an account and call me all sorts of names. I won't even know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is out to get you. I am not out to get you. I do not want to go to ANI. This is too silly to take to ANI. I know nothing of your history at notice boards, maybe I should, I dunno. I do not want you desysopped. I am the last guy on this project to want to gang up on anyone. As I said, from my point of view, you gave me good advice when I needed it. Before today, I would have characterize my issues with you as, I might have self-banned after the RfC if asked, but you didn't ask, and then I was very disappointed when you told me to shut up and stop asking questions and take my punishment. If there is a theme running through that day and today may I respectfully observe a certain, almost showy, quickness to the mop. Hugh (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I do not want to go to ANI. This is too silly to take to ANI", yeah, I hear that a lot from people who accuse administrators of wrongdoing when they are just doing the job we elected them to do.

The US politics pages need fewer editors who want to either whitewash or blackwash the Koch brothers and more editors who want the articles to be WP:NPOV. If that means getting a few disruptive Koch-lovers and Koch-haters off the pages in question, then so be it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you imagine that comment might be helpful? Hugh (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't meant to be helpful you. You are a disruptive editor who clearly doesn't want my advice. It is meant to encourage and offer support to the administrator who you have falsely accused of wrongdoing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What administrator did I falsely accuse of wrongdoing? Hugh (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your WP:BLUDGEON doesn't work here. I am done responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]