Talk:Koch, Inc.: Difference between revisions

Environmental and safety record

From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed "more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments." Another source points out that Koch has had only "eight instances of alleged misconduct ... over the span of 63 years" despite being a giant multinational, and that this compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the similarly large General Electric corporation.

Pollution and resource fines

In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.

In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters", by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst. --Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

definately No to the last line. As one of the largest companies in the world this kind of statement is similar to the "one of the worlds largest nitrogen fertilizer supplier". The study does not take into consideration the size of the opperations, only the result, if it was adjusted for size of the company it would be far more useful. Ask yourself which is worse, a small company that pollutes a lot with respect to the size of the opperation, or a large company that pollutes a little over hundreds or thousands of sites? Arzel (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked the {{cite press release}} for the last sentence. Was the implication that the material is not reliable intentional or unintentional? In any case, the implication is there, and should either be explained, removed, or the sentence removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we find any other company articles which go to this extent in saying a company has been fined? I fear the material about the fines was entirely due to political considerations, and not to Koch being unuaually evil. For example, why not enumerate the companies with higher fines? Or better yet - why not list fines by value of company? A company worth only $1 billion with fines of $100 million is clearly less "evil" than one worth $100 billion with fines of $100 million, I would dare to say. Remove it all as being intrinsically POV if we keep the other companies unlisted, and especially if their articles do not have a corresponding claim ascribed to the same cite. Collect (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So most people want to remove even more? I suppose that's fine with me. A comment, though: I looked up the top 10 companies on that list, and a) most of them have at least some mention of fines and/or pollution in the articles, and b) Koch is one of the smaller companies on that list, at least measured by number of employees (which is the first measure of size that I thought of), so it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To Still - I said I would give three days, and it's been two. Nobody had objected (you can see the discussion above is based on removing more material, not less), so I don't see why you couldn't wait another day. Also, you didn't remove the Koch Nitrogen statement as I said I would, but placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What counts as three days depends on what time zone you're in. Regardless, there was no good reason for reverting it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was three days since my first statement (diff), but the relevant one (diff) was not until 47 hours before your edit. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and when I revert in 24 hours, is anything going to be different? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Arc does that himself. ViriiK (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: How would it be different if Arc did it as opposed to if I did it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a) it's considered an extension of good faith to let others make edits that you are in favor of, b) people on these articles don't really trust you right now (whether or not it's justified, it's a statement of fact), and c) as I said above, you didn't actually make the same edit. Also, because I don't want to join anything even remotely resembling an edit war, if you edit again and are reverted again I will not subsequently make the edit myself. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, (b) goes against WP:AGF and the basic spirit of collegial editing. Reverting something based on the editor who made the change instead of the content is 'bad', in a word, despicable. ViriiK should be ashamed of himself for his actions.

As for (c), the only difference is that I kept a sentence that was already there. If that sentence was really a problem, then ViriiK could have removed just that sentence. As it was, he left it in when he reverted the changes that we all agreed upon. Frankly, this looks like (b) all over again.

Moving back to (a), I never had any objection to you making the change. I just object to the idea that you should be allowed to while I'm not. That's simply personal bias, and we should be better than that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really suggest you strikethrough (or remove) some of those comments, especially "Reverting...actions." (Regardless of whether you think they're justified.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to set a good example regarding the assumption of good faith, I have done so. I would hate to be the black pot by being needlessly harsh. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Environmental and safety record (new section)

Okay, so I'm going to very carefully make the edit that I had previously proposed, and which has not been opposed for ~3 days from the time I said I would make the edit. (I assume that ViriiK's reversion of Still was on principle and not an objection.)

My reasoning is above, although there's a lot of other discussion there, so the relevant diffs are 1 2 3 4. Summary: I have removed the four statements in the "Environmental and Safety Record" section that are at the sub-national level, to get the version that I proposed in the third diff. Of course, I invite anyone to discuss if they would like.

A suggestion was made above that the Amherst study also be removed. I've left it in for now, as it wasn't part of my original proposal; my impression (as I said in the fourth diff) is that it could reasonably be retained, although of course I am open to being convinced. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others that the Amherst study should be removed. The study states, to get their rankings they “rate corporate performance in terms of (1) the total amount and toxicity of chemical releases; (2) the resulting pollution burdens, taking into account the number of people impacted; and (3) the extent to which these burdens fall disproportionately on low-income communities and people of color.” [1]

So the size of the companies, # of facilities, is not taken into account (I think # of facilities is a more practical measure of size than # of employees when looking at pollution rankings). Relative to the size, KI has done very well to minimize pollution. Look at the links to the data on the companies from the study. The top five ranked polluters on this list, Bayer, Exxon, Sunoco, E.I. du Pont, and ArcelorMittal have only 14, 52, 16, 59, and 21 facilities respectively. KI has 128 facilities. With so many you would expect to see a higher pollution score, but they have done well to minimize pollution and its effects, leading to a much lesser ranking than companies that are a fraction of their size.

We can’t add this context into the article because it would be called original research. The awards that were in the section helped to add context because they showed that KI was doing well to minimize pollution. Without the context, the study should be removed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I saw that Arc mentioned "it's not clear that they would do better on a different list if one existed." I found this Pollution Ranking of the top 100 facilities ranked by "total environmental releases", and none of the KI facilities show up on the list. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Layoff notices if Obama elected

Well, apparently, I was wrong. The statement seems to be reported by a real news source. However, it's not just Koch; the real article at Yahoo! News lists 2 other companies. I'm not sure this is notable. Koch did something similar in 2010, and there are probably dozens of large companies that we can locate who did something like that in 2008. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused how this "layoff" bit is still on the page:

Koch Industries has also encouraged employees to vote for conservative candidates. In These Times Magazine reported that a political flyer sent to 45,000 employees of Koch Industries paper subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, urged the workers to vote for a list of Koch-endorsed candidates, including Mitt Romney. The voting information asserted:

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.[58]

Koch Industries replied that

“As we regularly point out, Koch companies and Koch PAC support candidates based on their support for market-based policies and economic freedom, which benefits society as a whole. Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions.”[59]

Papa John's, Walmart, Denny's, Red Lobster, and Olive Garden (to name a few) did the same thing. Also, the source is In These Times... AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Contributions to Dems and GOP

It took Collect four minutes to delete this factoid from the article.

In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts. In the House of Representatives, for example, Democratic candidates have received $23,500 from Koch PAC while Republican candidates have been given $1.162 million.

... Alleging "this sort of editorialising does not benefit Wikipedia readers" in the edit summary.
I might point out the source of this information was the conservative business magazine/website Forbes, and the very tame statement of fact (In the 2012 election Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has supported both Democrats and Republicans, though not in equal amounts) was a toned down paraphrasing of this from the Forbes article:

Koch Industries’ Koch PAC has indeed supported Democrats this election, but only to the tune of $23,500, backing four Democrats in Congressional races (for the record: $10,000 to Georgia’s John Barrow, $2,000 to Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, $5,500 to Minnesota’s Collin Peterson and $6,000 to Arkansas’ Mike Ross).

By contrast, Koch PAC has spent $1.162 million on Republican candidates for the House, plus another $152,000 on GOP Senate hopefuls. FEC disclosures show that the Koch Industries group donated $25,000 to the the official Romney/Ryan fundraising committee in August, as well as $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and Republican National Committee.

...in response to the Koch industries statement:

"Our support is not based on party affiliation, and we support both Republicans and Democrats who support market-based policies and solutions". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably a mistake. I put the informative text back.Sally Season (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a mistake and founded on Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

... So anyway I added the source of the example to satisfy Collect's complaint:("the wording "for example" is a clear sign that an editorial comment is going to be made in Wikipedia's voice. We do not do this.") --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this article need a criticism section?

Why is there not a section devoted to criticism and/or controversy of Koch Industries like you see with most other highly controversial entities throughout Wikipedia?

For starters, observe this list of well-sourced controversies spawned via Koch Industries here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries#2011_Bloomberg_Markets_Expos.C3.A9

1 2011 Bloomberg Markets Exposé

1.1 Bribery of Foreign Officials

1.2 Firing of Compliance Officer

1.3 Trading with Iran

1.4 Falsifying Benzene Emissions

1.5 Stealing Oil on Indian Reservations

1.6 Deadly Butane Explosion

1.7 The 'Koch Method'

2 Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

3 Business interests (Includes them being one of the United States' top 10 air polluters)

4 Koch Brothers' Fortune vs. Koch Industries' Employment

5 Affiliations and Funding of Interest Groups

5.1 Koch Family Foundations

5.2 Cato Institute

5.3 Americans for Prosperity

5.4 Tea Party Movement and Funding

6 Direct Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

6.1 Political Contributions

6.2 Lobbying

7 Koch Industries' Political Activities

7.1 Voting Advice to Employees

7.2 Koch strategy retreat, 2011

7.2.1 Attendees

7.2.1.1 June 2010 participants

7.2.1.2 Earlier guests included politicians and Supreme Court justices (Scalia & Thomas)

7.3 Linked to union-busting efforts

7.3.1 In Wisconsin and nationally, 2011

7.4 Climate denial and delay

7.4.1 Fighting greenhouse gas regulations

7.4.1.1 Regional Climate Change Accords

7.4.1.1.1 New Hampshire

7.4.1.2 EPA, 2011

7.4.1.3 California, 2010

7.4.1.3.1 Koch subsidiary donates $1 million to stop Calif. GHG law

7.4.2 Other Koch funding

7.4.2.1 Koch-funded organizations

7.4.2.2 Organizations' messaging on "ClimateGate"

7.5 Tar Sands, 2011

7.6 Actions during and before the GW Bush administration

7.6.1 Lobbying

7.6.2 Pollution - Spills, fines and indictments

7.6.2.1 Off the hook after GWBush became president

7.6.2.1.1 Koch representation in Bush's cabinet

So, let's stop the whitewashing, add a criticism/controversy section and make this a respectable, encyclopedic article worthy of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has plenty of criticism in it. Making any Wikipedia article into a hit piece, however, is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating facts about well-known controversies doesn't make an article a "hit piece". For example, there's no mention whatsoever of the controversial trading with Iran? That's a blaring omission in itself and further evidence of whitewashing. We all need to go forward with making an informative article with a NPOV and NOT a public relations piece for Koch Industries. If you fight adding a NPOV to this article you will be against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, you are not the arbiter of whether or not "the article has plenty of criticism"; That is up to consensus as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cowicide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article has 49 lines which are critical - or about half of the entire article. What percentage of the article do you feel should be devoted to critical commentary? Collect (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't "critical commentary"... sorry, your newspeak doesn't work on me. It's adding notable, critical FACTS that are missing from this article. I'm not interested in adding opinion, just FACTS. Also, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Article facts don't limit themselves on a percentage basis, it's about notability and accuracy. Otherwise, I suggest you go fix this article about Charlie Manson that has a high percentage of critical FACTS and see how far you get attempting to bend reality there. Do you feel a need to continue whitewashing this article? You should read this. And, with that, we should begin fixing this article and be transparent about it, ok? Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clear to me that there are a number of critical "facts" already in the article which aren't factual. Do you feel a need to continue blackwashing the article? As for your specifics:

• 1.1, 1.2, and 1.6 are covered in the article.
• 5, 6, and most of 7 would be appropriate in the "Political ..." article, and I seem to remember them being covered (beyond the point of verifiable facts). Enough of them are covered here to suggest that any further addition would be undue weight. Much of what you think should be in 7.4.2.1 is demonstrably false, even if stated in sourcewatch. Much of 7.6.2 is still here; I suspect more is here than should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was "blackwashing" the article as you suggest, then where are my edits on the article that do this? Show me or retract your false accusation, please. On the other hand, all one has to do is read through this Talk page and its archive to see evidence of whitewashing the article against truthful, well-sourced, critical information that Koch Industries obviously campaigns to neuter here. It's ridiculous that companies like Microsoft on Wikipedia have entire articles devoted to criticism, but strangely enough there's not even a comprehensive section here for such a notably controversial corporation. Instead there's strained, sporadic criticisms missing a large amount of factual content that's out there. It's time to stop this blatant whitewashing that's making this a weak article.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that wikipedia shouldn't duplicate the partisan sourcewatch wiki (operated by the Center for Media and Democracy which is obviously a progressive organization) word for word. And, I also agree that everything in that list isn't notable, but what I hope is that editors who respect NPOV will look through that list and add what is notable and factual. That's why I added that info to the Talk page and not into the article itself. Cowicide (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that you had been blackwashing the article. I should have said "continue the blackwashing of the article", implying that there had been blackwashing, and you wanted to continue or expand it. And I agree that the blackwashing of the article can easily be seen by looking at the talk page and archives. As for sourcewatch, consensus is that only the reporting on contributions, extracted from official documents, is reliable. (Although, in some cases, what is said there is covered by reliable sources. In a few cases, even what is covered by reliable sources, such as 7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.) Most of point 6 (reliable), and more than is truthful from 7, is in the associated political activities of the Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blackwashing attempts of the article have been thwarted up to this point and I commend you and others for helping against that. While we must all be diligent to protect the article from blackwashing from biased parties whose only goal is to put the company in a bad light (as apposed to telling the notable truth); We must also be diligent to protect the article from whitewashing from biased parties whose goal is to put the company in a good light (as apposed to telling the notable truth).

Hopefully you will work with me to achieve these goals. As you know, my goal is to fix an article that has been whitewashed and I know that you are a Libertarian who wants to protect the company from a blackwash. I appreciate that you are upfront about being a Libertarian on your User Page so we have some transparency. All one has to do is look at my Talk page to see my positions and what I'm sure some will perceive as my foibles. You seem like a reasonable person, so hopefully together we can fix this whitewashing that has harmed the quality of this article while at the same time avoiding unsourced criticisms that will harm this article in the other direction.

One of the reasons this article's quality suffers is its glaring lack of a distinctive criticisms section. I was shocked when I came to this article and couldn't find one. Koch Industries is an unarguably controversial company and doesn't have a specific controversy section (or page) as it should (per wikipedia guidelines) when so many other companies on Wikipedia do. Case and point: Microsoft , Walmart , Target , Whole Foods and as you should know as a seasoned editor that list goes on and on. How do you explain this glaring omission of such a controversial company on Wikipedia? It's been whitewashed. Whether it's been from good intentions or not, it needs to be fixed.

When you say "7.4.2.1, is clearly, objectively, false.", what is specifically false in that section? Please provide your reliable sources and proof to back up your statement. I also see where you deleted my edit without discussing it with me first. As per wikipedia guidelines, I have reverted it back until we discuss your actions and reach consensus. My edit was properly sourced, notable and put into a proper section (Environmental and safety record). What better place to put their environmental record than within the environmental record section? Then again, if there was a proper criticism section (or page) that wasn't whitewashed off this article, I could have placed it there as well. Cowicide (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONTROVERSY suggests that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but I see it's observed more in the breach than as a guideline.

As for "objectively false", sourcewatch, among others, has assumed that if Koch founded and funded A, and B has spun-off from A, then Koch "founded" and "funded" B. This is absolutely wrong, in the case of FreedomWorks, for example. If you (and sourcewatch) ignore spinoffs, and determine which organizations the Kochs were funding while they were active, then the associations may be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I also already addressed the wikipedia guidelines above where it makes it clear that organizations and corporations that are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism, can and should have a criticism section or page. Also this: "... In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. ... ". Are you trying to deny this reality for Koch Industries? Cowicide (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding certain edits

Aurther, I'm going to go ahead and ask for some help with this from others. Please do NOT delete entire sections of my edits again without discussion or I will consider it whitewashing and/or vandalism of this article. If you dispute the neutrality of the section, feel free to add a tag to it and let's iron it out here. Nuking everything I worked on isn't going to cut it. The sad thing is while you blanket deleted all my edits, I was working on trying to appease you with the last part. How about working WITH me instead of trying to start an edit war? Please also read my response to you in the section above if you want to further question my good faith while undermining a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Cowicide (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; it was Arzel (talk · contribs). I don't think it belongs there, per previous consensus, but I only tagged it as {{primary-source-inline}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me it was Arzel and not yourself engaging in the edit war. I will issue Arzel a warning on Arzel's Talk page since you didn't. I will address the primary-source issue promptly. I apologize for the confusion. Cowicide (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You should check yourself Cowicide. Do you even know what an edit war is? No go remove your false warning from my page. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, the "blanket deleter" without discussion...? Indeed, it is you that's needs to check oneself. And you just did it yet again. You could have discussed this first with me, but instead you declare yourself the authority and delete it first. Actually, you've now crossed the line. Taking out the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute top 10 polluter information while blatantly leaving the Heartland Institute's "environmental awards" that I placed right next to it shows your absolute bias against even attempting to work on this being a fair and balanced article. How does that work, Arzel? Anything positive of Koch Industries is OK? Anything critical not OK? Wikipedia doesn't work like that.

You can't blanket delete the entire The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information which is NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE while leaving the Heartland Institute awards in place without being blatantly biased. You have a history of being overly biased and overly protective of Koch Industries. It's time for you to step away and remove yourself from this article. Unlike you, I've made edits that are BOTH critical AND positive of Koch Industries. Unlike you, I've added NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE info to the article while you very selectively slash and burn things you think are negative while not even touching upon the positive. You're acting like a cheerleader for Koch Industries and it's time for you to step aside. If you have further VALID issues with the NOTABLE, FACTUAL and VERIFIABLE University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute information, then tag the section with a NPOV tag and let's iron it out here first to work on the wording, etc.

By the way, did you even LOOK at the Heartland Institute info I put there? It's from a biased, libertarian think tank to help balance out a University and you don't even BLINK at it. I'm putting the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute back in place because the Heartland Institute MORE than balances it out. If you have an issue with the University, then you got to also have an issue with the Heartland Institute being there. That is, unless you're biased and only want biased edits. Cowicide (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute is biased, as well. Just because you agree with their bias is no reason that it shouldn't be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, the cat's out of the bag. Biased as well? If they are both biased then why are you ok with the removal of the one (that's critical of Koch Industries) while it's perfectly OK to leave the other one (that's postive of Koch Industries)? You're supporting a blatantly biased edit and now you're wallowing in it. Once again, as I said with the edit's comment and above. The UofM Institute is balanced by the Heartland Institute and you just confirmed that with your own words. You can't have it both ways. It's obvious your libertarian leanings is clouding your judgement. I put in a critical Institute it should get removed. I put in a positive Institute and it gets a pass. That's not how Wikipedia works. Why not take a critical, closer look at the Heartland Institute's information? It's time to bring third party users and administrators to come take a look at what's going on here. STOP the whitewashing, please. Cowicide (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy now? I removed both. The difference is you are here to push your activism, while I simply didn't read everything you added and only removed the section which had been earlier discussed with no concensus for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, you're the one acting like a libertarian activist around here who professes your biased disdain for Koch criticism. Unlike you, I put BOTH positive and negative info in the article. It's you that ignores the positive bias unless I bring it up. So now you just delete both because you can't have it your way and have ONLY the negative? This isn't how Wikipedia works. I'm currently in the process of bringing in disinterested third parties. Hopefully they'll be here soon with their input and we can reach consensus on what to do next. I will hold off on any further editing until there's further input from disinterested third parties. That is, unless you blanket delete entire sections again because of your biases and I will revert it and report you to administrators. Cowicide (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It would help if we could have a listing of the particular items that "ought" or "ought not" be in the article. And as part of the listing it would help to have rationale that justifies inclusion or exclusion of each item. The discussion above is not helpful and seems to be going in circles. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Blatant violation of WP:CANVASS

Language in the nature of

I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance

when canvassing for additional editors is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS as it is absolutely not "neutral" as is required by that behavioural guideline. Posts made in response to such campaigning may be ignored by any admin closing any such discussion as violative of previous ArbCom statements (WP:False consensus). Collect (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very selective editing there, Collect. You strangely forgot the part where I asked for disinterested third parties and my goal to make the article more informative and encyclopedic. What are you afraid of? True consensus instead of your little biased libertarian party? Cowicide (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)