Talk:Roger Ver

lack of close enough ties to new country

in 2015 he was denied a visa to reenter the United States by the U.S. State Department, because the he lacked close enough ties to his new country, Saint Kitts and Nevis, causing fears he might become an illegal immigrant.

Does this sentence mean his citizenship of Saint Kitts and Nevis is in doubt? Did the US accept his renouncement of US citizernship? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For background, see Visa_requirements_for_Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_citizens and Renunciation_of_citizenship. Renouncing US citizenship means giving up the right to enter the US. Entry as a visitor may be allowed, but the State Department doesn't have to allow it. Many people want to get into the US and can't. John Nagle (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is completely inaccurate. I was denied a visa according to the embassy because I hadn't shown ties outside of the USA to ANY country that would motivate me to leave the USA at the end of my trip. The law doesn't require that the ties be to any specific country, including the country of citizenship. The embassy workers had the audacity to do this while refusing to even look at the evidence provided. (They disallowed me from even sliding my evidence through the interview slot for them to review) Subsequently my visa was approved on the first try at the US embassy in Tokyo. (Source for all this is me, Roger Ver) http://pastebin.com/iUS72J9ERogerver (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerver (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Explosives vs firecrackers

One man's firecracker is another man's explosives. The Federal charges were about selling explosives, and this shouldn't be downplayed or removed (the Boston Marathon bombs used black powder from fireworks too). Let's not introduce POV over this. Right now the Bloomberg source says the "firecracker" characterization is Ver's own. Do we have anything else authoritative to go on? — Brianhe (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Department of Justice press release.[1] * According to the plea agreement, Mr. Ver admitted to engaging in the business of selling explosives without a license from January 1999 through August 2000. According to the information and plea agreement, Mr. Ver sold explosive devices described as “Pest Control Report 2000” on the online auction site eBay. He purchased approximately 49 pounds of the devices from a supplier in South Carolina, and sold at least 14 pounds of the devices to bidders on eBay. While engaging in the business of selling explosive devices, Mr. Ver stored the explosives in a residential apartment building and mailed the devices via the United States Mail in a manner contrary to Postal Service regulations. Judge Fogel sentenced the Defendant to 10 months in federal prison, a fine of $2,000, as well as a three-year period of supervised release." The manufacturer was also shut down, along with some other dealers.[2] The manufacturer's owner, KENNETH SHEARER, was convicted and went to prison in 2002.[3] The Bureau of Prisons inmate locator [4] (he's #06822-027) shows Shearer released in 2009.

As for fireworks vs explosives, the current limit on firecracker size in the US is 50mg of flash powder. The "Pest Control Report 2000" was 1000mg, or 1g. Current limits are rather conservative; firecrackers with 2G of gunpowder were widely available through the 1960s. With gunpowder, explosive power is more about containment than powder quantity. See pipe bomb. John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My previous reference was poorly cited as it was indeed repeating a claim by Ver himself so I agree with its removal. However since it is not only Ver who refers to them as firecrackers we should add the clarification. The Consumer Product Safety Commission refers to them as agricultural firecrackers numerous times at this page. If they do, then shouldn't we be making such a distinction as well? Without a one-sentence clarification it seems to be adding bias, because the word explosive carries significantly more weight on its own without the extra detail. Before I proceed with this addition is there any opposition to this clarification using the CPSC as a source? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. In this context of an "explosive device" charge (multiple charges actually) referring to out-of-context consumer safety regulations is just misleading. Nagle what think you? - Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The addition expands the context. We have a clear heading and sentence about the explosives. If you want to add some details about them, go ahead, like I am suggesting. The article needs to be comprehensive. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

49 pounds of black powder firecrackers puts you into serious explosive territory. John Nagle (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think as always we ought to follow the sources. Sources that specifically mention Ver and these materials, whatever they are. So far they are described in independent sources as 'explosives' and that's what Wikipedia should repeat. Going back and saying e.g. for farm use they are also called 'reports' or 'firecrackers' is non germane and amounts to either OR or wikiwashing and I would object to it. - Brianhe (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not misleading if that it is how the Consumer Product Safety Commission refers to them. This is the responsible authority. In their press release it refers to them primarily as firecrackers (6 times) over explosives (twice). This is the point I raise which you both have ignored. The word explosive is currently mentioned three times in the article. The penalty applied and criminal category explain the seriousness. I am not asking for that to change or for anything to be whitewashed. Such a description, regarding the nature and use of this kind of explosive is an important distinction we should be making. If you want to add a detail regarding quantity to provide balance or context then go for it. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Other sources

I'm not familiar with how to edit anything on Wikipedia, but for anyone who is interested I think people would find my involvement with these other events interesting:

Founder of both Memorydealers.com, and Agilestar.com Memorydealers.com was the first mainstream business in the world to start accepting Bitcoin. (April 2011)
Creator of Bitcoinstore.com, the first website in the world to accept Bitcoin for hundreds of thousands of items.
Donated over $170K USD to the defense of Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road:
Donated over $1M USD to Fee.org as a result of my $10K USD Bitcoin Bet in 2011
Current owner of Bitcoin.com
Creator of Bitcoinbountyhunter.com and placed a $20K USD bounty to catch a hacker.
Avid competitor in Brazilian Jujitsu (Purple Belt, 3rd degree) Rogerver (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Roger Ver

Apologist for Mt. Gox, assuring customers that there was no liquidity problem.[5] Should that go into the article? John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Too much "he said"?

Please check this big expansion in the article.[6]. This may be too much "what article subject said", rather than "what others said about article subject". John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. What I suggest you do is add two or three {{citation needed}} next the most egregious of statements. That will allow other editors to address your concerns. If no sources can be found in a week or two any problematic sentence can be adjusted or removed. I've been mindful of your criticism as I edit an article for a person who has created debate about a particular area of concern. Knowing that and not wanting the time I spend working on it to be for nothing means that I have been sure to add only what has been repeatedly said on the public record. Sometimes people themselves are the best source for specific things. Certain things which can't be readily verified have not been included. If you are going to remove stuff please give a valid justification on this discussion page first. Thanks and please expand the article to include anything you think is relevant. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"CEO of Bitcoin.com"?

Article says subject is "CEO of Bitcoin.com". Is "Bitcoin.com" a real company? It doesn't seem to be. The "about" link says it's run by "St. Bitts LLC".[7] Ver may own that. The "bitcoin.com" site is basically links to other sites, with some ads and a forum. Maybe "CEO of St. Bitts LLC" instead? John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Roger Ver is CEO, owner, controls the domain for Bitcoin.com, and runs the entire business. He tightly controls every one of the many sub-businesses there from the news desk to the casino to the store and wallet listings. He's got several dozens of employees and contractors working for him and although St. Bitts LLC is the Nevis-registered actual business name, everyone internally and externally calls the business simply "Bitcoin.com." Source: I worked for him there on the news desk for half a year.

This is, of course, quite scandalous that he controls the most popular domain in Bitcoin and uses it to promote Bitcoin Cash, (BCH) and alternative to bitcoin. Even the "Bitcoin" wallet his company developed and distributes from the website is confusing to new users because it lists both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash inside it, but if you simply click the "receive" link from the main page it gives users the link to the bitcoin cash address automatically, which would then misplace any bitcoin sent to it... Basically losing all bitcoin that is sent to the wallet that way. BitcoinerNumeroUno (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Last I checked, by default the app has the same addresses on both wallets it creates by default; so nothing is lost (I mean, besides what's wasted in fees in the Core chain, not to mention the money locked away because it costs more to move than what is stored in the addresses in that chain). So either you're misinformed and didn't actually got that information by actually looking at the real app; or you're intentionally trying to make it look bad with lies. Either way, that's not something that should be included in the article. --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No need for us to get into a BTC-BCH debate here; but that app has been responsible for several people sending their Bitcoins to BCH addresses. Some have been recovered, but not all. The real problem is that when you first open the wallet, without choosing either currency yet, there is a 'receive' button at the bottom... If you click on that button it defaults into a BCH wallet... So someone moving quickly or who isn't paying attention will give a BCH public address for people trying to send them bitcoins. BitcoinerNumeroUno (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, last I checked, the addresses are the same on both chains, so it's not "a BCH public address", it's both a BTC and a BCH address at the same time. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

Why was the word "contentious" removed from the description of the aborted Segwit2X hard fork of bitcoin? It was contentious for various reasons, too detailed for the Ver biography? Also, why was the lack of consensus changed to support? Consensus in this instance a technical term. With the majority of nodes on the network configured to reject the proposed changes, those changes would not be considered the consensus rules. The lack of support from the community is second reason for the changes being dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbleblotchit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources supporting the statements that because of Ver's "actions against Bitcoin" he was also called 'Bitcoin Judas' or 'Bitcoin Antichrist'. The sources don't claim that label was widely used, unlike the Bitcoin Jesus moniker which has now been removed from the infobox. I am not sure why Ver's statements about Mt Gox are included. Ver attempted to enter politics as the article states but I don't think he is a former politician. Parts of the early life section have been removed without reason. WhalePanda's blog is not a reliable, independent source. I think some editors are bringing their bias to this article. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

«Ver attempted to enter politics as the article states but I don't think he is a former politician.«

Agreed, that can bias the article by the general distrust in politicians that many people have in certain (many?) countries.

Tuxayo (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Why was the word "contentious" removed from the description of the aborted Segwit2X hard fork of bitcoin?" - I did not remove the word "contentious". What I did change was the wording using vague "contentious fork" instead of specific "SegWit2x". See WP:NPOV for the suggestions.

"Also, why was the lack of consensus changed to support?" - I replaced the "consensus" by "support" to neutrally reflect the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"I replaced the 'consensus' by 'support' to neutrally reflect the source." 'Consensus' is not a biased term. As explained, it is a technical term. Bitcoin nodes impose the consensus rules. With most nodes configured to reject Segwit2x, it failed to achieve consensusGobbleblotchit (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"'Consensus' is not a biased term." - I never claimed the opposite. What I did claim, however, is that the formulation represented the source in a neutral way, instead of attempting to "correct it". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got it. Thanks. Gobbleblotchit (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

photo

I'm not familiar with how to add images, but I think there should be a photo of him. Benjamin (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page is about a controversial subject and a lock is needed. [8] for example. @David Gerard: maybe you could add this to your patrol, in case you are not watching it. To the responding admin, please take a look at the recent revert history and please place a permanent autoconfirmed users lock on this page, a temporary one isn't going to help, as this person will not be less controversial next week...As this is a WP:BLP the subject deserves to have the page be reasonable, regardless of whatever he does or says. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:(Non-administrator comment) To request page protection, you should go to WP:RFPP. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Thank youJtbobwaysf (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RFPP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#BC_and_RV prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No reason to whitewash

The man is a convicted felon. There's no reason to revert-war this out of the short intro, as if it's not a noteworthy fact about him. Most felons don't get a press release, Ver did - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, David Gerard. As far as I understand, you claim that the fact that Roger Ver is a convicted felon is notable. Nevertheless, the source you use can confirm that Ver is a convicted felon pleaded guilty for selling explosives, but it cannot confirm that this fact is notable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a notability test for content? I would think the a .gov source is an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE covers how much weight something should receive. The current reference supporting the statement is a DOJ press release announcing that Ver pleaded guilty to selling explosives (it does not actually mention "felony"); other sources referring to him as a convicted felon would be useful. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are two sources [9] and [10]. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, at least the second of the sources refers to Ver as a "convicted felon", which the DOJ source does not, in fact, as Hrodvarsson said. Nevertheless, both sources are referring to something else as their main subject. Their titles are "How the Winklevoss twins became bitcoin billionaires" and "How Cambridge Analytica fueled a shady global passport bonanza". In other words, neither of the sources finds the news about Ver particularly important, and they both use it just as one of examples they list. Having attended several discussions on notability, such minor examples did not qualify as establishing subject's notability. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The subject's notability is not at question here. The issue seems to have been multiply noted in RS biographical coverage of the subject, as something to note about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is you who claims that the sentence "The man is a convicted felon" is noteworthy. After analyzing the issue, I think that the sources do not confirm this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I just found out that Jtbobwaysf hurried to make sure that the claim "The man is a convicted felon", is mentioned not just once, but twice in the lead section, the first time in the very first sentence, and repeated again in the second paragraph of the section. Actually, from skimming the lead section, this is presented as the most notable information about Ver now. Since the notability of the claim was found to be weak, the discussion here is whether it is WP:DUE to mention this in the lead section once. I am positive that mentioning it twice in the lead section violates WP:DUE policy, but am not surprised that Jtbobwaysf ignores this discussion and its findings. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, then edit it to your liking. It is wikipedia after all. Besides that also good to WP:AGF. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard I would like to ask you why you think referencing the felony in the opening sentence is appropriate? The felony incident is already discussed twice more in the short lead, yet the felony happened before Ver was notable, and wasn't what made him notable. Can you show any examples of other peoples' bios which include a reference in the opening sentence to a felony that occurred before they were famous and wasn't what led to them being famous? It seems like a pretty poor practice. Sandman9083 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEDE. The first sentence should be a complete very-short article, the first paragraph should be a complete very-short article, the first section should be a complete very-short article. Shoving off the "oh by the way he's a convicted felon" into the body of the article is whitewashing. As you have freshly created an account just to make this edit, presumably you are completely new to Wikipedia (and not just a sockpuppet of another account) - I'd suggest reading the {{welcome}} pack for relevant policy and guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard Can you point me to some evidence of best practice being the first sentence as a complete short article? On the contrary I've found this in MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

The felony is a random negative fact thats not relevant at all to Ver's notability. I can find dozens of articles about people who've committed felonies, but none of them contain that fact in the lead sentence unless the felony is relevant to them becoming notable, or the felony was very high profile because it occurred after they were already famous. Neither of which are the case here. Can you show me a counter example? It's clear that shoving this random fact into the lead sentence gives it undue weight, and isnt whitewashing because its clearly mentioned 2 more times in a very short lead section. It's clear that this is not normal for a wikipedia article. Sandman9083 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sandman9083, you are right in that it indeed is WP:UNDUE to present this specific fact as if it was the most noteworthy information about the person. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

David isnt even being accurate in his reasoning here. He says: "Shoving off the "oh by the way he's a convicted felon" into the body of the article is whitewashing." Yet the felony was clearly mentioned again in the lead, followed again in the next sentence by how long he spent in jail....it wasn't simply "shoved off into the body of the article". I'd really like him to go look at articles of other people who committed a random felony before they were notable that didnt lead to their notability , and see how often that tidbit is brought up in the openening sentence. Sandman9083 (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have examples for your claim, since being a convicted felon seems non-trivial from an encyclopedic point of view, and yes it is brought up in article ledes. Here are some examples: Joseph Lau, Michael Conahan, Rae Carruth. Are you taking issue with this being mentioned in the first sentence instead of the article lede, or do you think this shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all? --Molochmeditates (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I only have issue with it being randomly added to the first sentence. The other reference to "he sold explosives on eBay and later pleaded guilty to three related felony charges." and the following reference "He served 10 months in prison" that are both already in the article lede gives plenty of weight to the issue, and I dont object to that at all.

I'm glad you asked for examples. Here's a list of notable people with felonies: https://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-convicted-of-felonies/celebrity-lists. I have checked the wiki pages for almost all of them, and havent found a single example of a felon label being tacked onto the opening sentence when the felony took place early in the person's career, let alone before they became notable at all. Here are the ones I could find which had felonies before their careers: Mark Wahlberg, 50 cent, Tim Allen, Nick Nolte, Danny Trejo, Allen Iverson, Merle Haggard, Charles S. Dutton. NONE of these articles label them as a convicted felon in the opening sentence. Its interesting to note many of the incidents are not even mentioned in the article lede at all (but like I said, that is not even what I'm recommending here). Out of the 46 other people listed on that page, only 2 have the felon label in the first sentence Suge Knight and Rae Carruth, both of which were arrested well after they were already famous and sentenced to decades in prison, effectively ending their careers and making it the most recent notable thing that they've done. The example Joseph Lau is an active fugitive on the run, and isn even mentioned in the first sentence. The other example was Michael Conahan, who doesnt appear to be notable at all, except for his felony, so its appropriate that it would be the intro sentence. As you can see, labeling Ver in the intro sentence as a felon, for a felony commited before he was notable, and for which he did not become notable, is a stark departure from accepted practices, due to the clear issues with WP:UNDUE Sandman9083 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sandman9083 (talk · contribs) appears to be an WP:SPA created to comment on this discussion. The key point is that sources refer to Ver as a convicted felon. It is not necessary to do a lot of OR about all the people who have convictions on wikipedia (there are lots), what is important is if sources refer to the articles subject as a felon. In this case they seem to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) Just because a source mentioned him as a felon, doesnt mean its not WP:UNDUE to feature that fact in the lead sentence, and especially if you go on to repeat it in the lede again. I suspect that most people editing wikipedia got their start because they saw a poorly edited article, so I dont see how attacking me personally is relevant to the discussion Sandman9083 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Australia visa denial

Is there third-party RS coverage of this? I can only find crypto press mentioning it so far - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I also didn't see any third party RS covering this. I also was unsure what the sourcing policy would be since it was a statement by the Ver's verified twitter account. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

criminals from

Hey, David Gerard! He's a dirtball for sure, but Category:American criminals and its subsets requires people be convicted of a notable felony. I'm open to argument! —valereee (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, he's a convicted felon, it rated a press release unlike most felons, and I argued for it to be in the intro ... I guess it's how notable is notable. See long argument above. Is there any past discussion of how impactful a felony has to be? - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, the rules are specified at Category:American criminals:

• Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a noteworthy felony by one or more Federal Article III courts or State courts (excluding impeachments or courts martial without another parallel conviction in a judicial tribunal, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), or
• Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.
• The felony is still punishable as a felony, if the act were committed today, and, holding all other elements of the act the same and assuming for this purpose it is physically possible to commit the act, would be a felony today if committed in any state, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico according to relevant laws.

Articles should be placed into each subcategory that applies.

And the discussions I found are all at Category talk:American criminals in their archives. —valereee (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the category does not satisfy WP:BLPCAT as Valereee explained above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, oh, thanks for that! I've been trying to figure out this policy, and that's a good bit of info. —valereee (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Co-creator of Bitcoin Cash

I propose removing the mention of the Fortune article that incorrectly references Roger as a co-creator of Bitcoin Cash. Roger has stated that he was not involved in its creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlAMpzDQoqk&t=614 76.28.240.101 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you, please, specify the article? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger is a well known promoter of this project. Not sure how we would use youtube to refute an RS. I suppose we could state that he denies the allegation that he created it, if other editors agreed to using youtube, but not sure if they would. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, he didn't actually create it, and if Fortune says so then it's in error ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont personally know who created it, I just read that he is often associated with it and referenced to it. I think the sources is in the bitcoin cash article and looked fine to me (maybe I even added it, as I recall the source vaguely.) Seems pretty vague what I have read if he created it with Jihan Wu, or if Wu and his friends did it on their own. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Prison experience section

According to WP:RS, sources by article subjects about themselves should not be relied on when they are unduly self-serving. In this instance, Ver is used as the direct and only source for his claim that he was arrested for something other than his acknowledged illegal (and dangerous) activity, and for an accusation against a corrections officer, whom he claims "tortured" him by making him cry. If a reliable secondary source is available, it ought to be used; otherwise I am not sure the section belongs in the article. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the section is largely WP:UNDUE and lacks WP:RS. It might be complely undue, but I went ahead and chopped out about 90% of it. I am not sure that what I left is due, I just wanted to leave some part of it as visitors can always go and watch the video themselves. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice source

New source on the bitcoin jesus at bloomberg. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Restore possible COI issues

Hi, there were presently two IP address editors that appeared to make promotional edits on this article. Please be advised of WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Please feel free to discuss your proposed edits here first. We are not using WP:PRIMARY sources on cryptocurrency articles (this is one) and we are not using any coindesk, theblock, and certainly not bitcoin.com for this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. This is the editor who did the edits (see my IP address). I have edited wikipedia before but am in no way related to the source. You reverted a massive number of edits with a heavy-handed blanket fashion. I actually never used The Block, Bitcoin.com, or Coindesk for sources. I provided explanations for each edit I did. If you don't believe me or you don't agree with some of the sources used, fine. Let's discuss. I mean really, a lot of the edits I did were basic edits adding archived links to dead URLs, changing structure of article to actually represent a typical Wikipedia article (like moving "personal life" to bottom, removing "explosive charges" from his "career" (lol), etc.), updating basic information like his citizenship and BJJ status (way out of date), and so on. Regarding no primary sources for cryptocurrency articles, I was unaware of this. Although as I see it, the article is a biography of a person, not a cryptocurrency article. And at any rate, if the argument is that Ver is so closely linked to, and well known for, cryptocurrency, that his biography is indistinguishable from a cryptocurrency article, then a lot of the informational edits I did make sense, as there is no logical reason to have the introduction open up with the fact he got in trouble selling a 14 pounds of agricultural firecrackers on eBay at 23, which has no relation to cryptocurrency and is not the reason Ver became notable. I generally edit with the intent on making Wikipedia better, nothing else (so long as no copyright or legal violations). 58.97.215.166 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The firecrackers we are not going to remove and is part of the subject's notability and is widely covered in WP:RS. It is encyclopedic. Are you related to the article subject? I dont think we are using links to government websites to attest someone's nationality. In general a lot of the edits were promotional and thus caught my attention. Please address here what you want to change. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, again. I just told you I am in no way related to the article's subject. I did not remove the firecrackers from the article. I just moved it to his "personal life", and kept it out of the introduction. I agree it is notable, but it is not why Ver became notable. He's not banned from the US or in trouble with the US in any way, and has gone to various conferences in the US on a visa since he renounced. Regarding citizenship, I never provided any links to government websites. Ver has stated online and elsewhere that he is an Antiguan citizen, and the official Facebook account of the Prime Minister's office (which I did link to) has stated he is an Antiguan citizen. Are we going to keep Wikipedia out of date because we don't want to use a source that we prefer not to use? CNN is unlikely to put out an article saying that Ver became a citizen of another small country any time soon. You asked what do I want to change: Well, look at the article from before I edited it, to how the page looked when I last edited it. His nationality was out of date, he is a blackbelt in BJJ, not a brown belt. He is the owner and Executive Chairman of Bitcoin.com and not just the "former CEO" (New York Times and Yahoo Finance sources was provided on that), he believed the Firecracker prosecution was politically motivated (Bloomberg source was provided on that), I created an "Early Life" section as appropriate, I moved the "Personal Life" section to the bottom as appropriate instead of awkwardly at the beginning, a lot of the sentences were strewn together with no organization or order. I did numerous informational edits, almost too many to mention; he was an angel investor in Kraken, Jesse Powell was not just his "High School friend", but the future founder and CEO of the entire Kraken exchange, added a referenced note to the word "Fireworks" explaining that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has described the product as "Fireworks" and "Agricultural Firecrackers", which was a very appropriate edit considering there was a "Talk" discussion about those terms. I added numerous archived links to sources that previously did not have them (some of them dead/404 error). A lot of the stuff was just inaccurate or misleading. Saying he renounced his citizneship after getting a "St. Kitts Passport" is just ridiculous. He renounced after becoming a St. Kitts citizen. U.S. embassies generally won't even let you renounce if you are not a citizen of another country. And on and on and on. In my opnion the logical thing to do would be to revert the edit to how I had it last, which was significantly better than it is now, and then go through it and edit it how you think is appropriate. The article was a mess before I edited it, even if we have some disagreements with what is or is not notable for the introduction, or what source should be used for various tidbits. 58.97.215.166 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We dont use primary sources just to keep articles up to date, this is a common complaint about the cryptocurrency articles, and this article follows the consensus just like the others. I suggest to do a few non-controversial changes and then we have a look at it. Some of the distinctions you are making are nuanced/absurd. For example:

"Saying he renounced his citizneship after getting a "St. Kitts Passport" is just ridiculous. He renounced after becoming a St. Kitts citizen." -who cares, just change it to citizenship

"added a referenced note to the word "Fireworks" explaining that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has described the product as "Fireworks" and "Agricultural Firecrackers", which was a very appropriate edit considering there was a "Talk" discussion about those terms." we dont normally add this type of clarification. Your argument sounds like WP:SYNTH. I think the subject was convicted to explosives, see if you can find a source that says firecrackers. The content is interesting and this is a small article, I dont think it should be removed from the LEAD at this point in time. Altcoin promoter that is a convicted fireworks dealer, has a nice ring to it :-)

"he was an angel investor in Kraken, Jesse Powell was not just his "High School friend", but the future founder and CEO of the entire Kraken exchange," Add a source showing he was an investor in Kraken, it is certainly nice to have this.

He is the owner and Executive Chairman of Bitcoin.com and not just the "former CEO" (New York Times and Yahoo Finance sources was provided on that)," yes, find a source for this. whatever Ver is doing with bitcoin.com is mostly promoting his altcoins. So we really arent going to get too far into this here, per WP:PROMO. If he is the current CEO, then link to the bitcoin.com website for that, I dont have a problem with that (its non-controversial) but other editors might remove it (be prepared).

"blackbelt in BJJ, not a brown belt." who cares. do you have a source for this?

"Ver has stated online and elsewhere that he is an Antiguan citizen, and the official Facebook account of the Prime Minister's office (which I did link to) has stated he is an Antiguan citizen." normally we also dont use facebook as a source, but might be ok for infobox (non-controversial). again other editors might object.

Maybe you can find some sources for the article subject in google books as well (those have ISBN numbers, no self-published amazon books). Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We dont use primary sources just to keep articles up to date,

Yet yourself personally edited his page in 2019 to note that Ver had an Australian tourist visa rejected, whose only source was Ver himself. Literally nothing else about this online, and not notable in anyway. He was rejected for non-criminal reasons, and yet you were comfortable and felt it necessary to add this to the article with only a primary source provided.

Some of the distinctions you are making are nuanced/absurd. For example: "Saying he renounced his citizneship after getting a "St. Kitts Passport" is just ridiculous. He renounced after becoming a St. Kitts citizen." -who cares, just change it to citizenship

Why is it absurd to be factually accurate? Furthermore, I did change it. And you reverted it.

"added a referenced note to the word "Fireworks" explaining that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has described the product as "Fireworks" and "Agricultural Firecrackers", which was a very appropriate edit considering there was a "Talk" discussion about those terms." we dont normally add this type of clarification.

You do when it repeatedly comes up in the Talk section.

I think the subject was convicted to explosives, see if you can find a source that says firecrackers.

The source was already provided in in the article even before I edited the page; hence all of the discussion about it on the Talk page. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is the one that referred to it this way. The product is literally called Fireworks/Agricultural Firecrackers. The "Explosives" terminology comes from the DOJ since literally all fireworks over a certain size are considered explosives. I did not remove or alter the DOJ's terminology in any way. All I did was add a small note (which people won't even see unless they click on it), clarifying that the products were fireworks/agricultural firecrackers.

"he was an angel investor in Kraken, Jesse Powell was not just his "High School friend", but the future founder and CEO of the entire Kraken exchange," Add a source showing he was an investor in Kraken, it is certainly nice to have this.

I did provide a source. It's called Bloomberg. You deleted it.

He is the owner and Executive Chairman of Bitcoin.com and not just the "former CEO" (New York Times and Yahoo Finance sources was provided on that)," yes, find a source for this. whatever Ver is doing with bitcoin.com

I literally just said to you what the source was. The New York Times clearly states he is the owner, and Yahoo clearly states he is the Executive Chairman. Furthermore, the reversion that you reverted to, already said he was the Executive Chairman. All I did was move that sentence to the introduction.

"blackbelt in BJJ, not a brown belt." who cares. do you have a source for this?

The people who care about it are people who want to make the article accurate, not 7 years out of date. The article already stated he was a brown belt. Why is it a problem to update it to black belt? I didn't change anything else. The source was his black belt certificate and the announcement on his verified X.com account. And before you say that that is not a good enough source, this was the exact same source (Ver's X account) you accepted for the Australian visa denial in 2019. And the only source provided for the brown belt was an interview with him from several years ago. That was apparently good enough for you, so this shouldn't be controversial.

"Ver has stated online and elsewhere that he is an Antiguan citizen, and the official Facebook account of the Prime Minister's office (which I did link to) has stated he is an Antiguan citizen." normally we also dont use facebook as a source, but might be ok for infobox (non-controversial).

So you acknowledge that while the source is not ideal, it might be ok in this instance. That is literally exactly what I said in the edit summary.

The content is interesting and this is a small article, I dont think it should be removed from the LEAD at this point in time.
Altcoin promoter that is a convicted fireworks dealer, has a nice ring to it :-)... whatever Ver is doing with bitcoin.com is mostly promoting his altcoins.

This is exactly why you demonstrate poor suitability to edit this page. Not only do you have a snarky attitude, but you clearly have a personal bias against him. You have even gone so far as to edit his page to mention his conviction for selling fireworks on eBay as a teenager to the first sentence of the article, even though it has no relation to why he became famous, and does not affect his notability or life situation at all. Even the sourced articles that mention it don't make it the centerpiece. You have been called out for WP:UNDUE and many other complaints during the last 7 years that you have been monitoring this page, which incidentally, coincides with exactly the time that Ver switched his support from Bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash and made a lot of enemies. If you want to accuse people here of WP:SPA, WP:COI, and so on, you yourself should not demonstrate bias.

NinjaRobotPirate I would like to bring attention to a Wikipedia user, Jtbobwaysf, that you previously Topic Banned, for, among other things, deleting citations without actually reading them, being wholly non-neutral in their ability to edit certain pages, and resorting to personal attacks.

I have recently spent the last couple of days editing the Wikipedia Page for Roger Ver. A total of 11,000 bytes of edits were added by myself. He deleted all edits at once, with no discussion or debate first, stating only he felt violations of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. When I responded to these concerns, he gave some quite surprising responses, and did not add back anything that he deleted.

Please read the Talk discussion thread for this situation.

Here is the page before I edited it and here is the page after I edited it.

To be crystal clear, I am very open to and encourage people to discuss anything that I edited, and to add or alter anything as they deem appropriate. I am not a professional Wikipedian and I know my edits are not perfect. I am not denying that there may be legitimate differences in how other editors view the tone, organization, or sources I provided in my edits. But please, I ask for your help.

If you want to re-write it yourself and ignore everything I did and everything Jtbobwaysf did, fine. As long as the article is fair and better than the mess it is now. I see on your page you sometimes rewrite articles. I sincerely hope you or someone with authority and neutrality will look at the difference in the articles from before I edited it and after and decide, as a neutral 3rd party, which parts were fair edits, and which parts are WP:PROMO & WP:COI (like Jtbobwaysf claims)

Some examples of what I believe to be relevant edits that I did during the few days that I edited the article (list is not exhaustive):

• Ver is the owner and executive chairman of Bitcoin.com, not just the "former ceo". (NYT source provided for him being owner, Yahoo source for him being Executive Chariman)
• Ver is now also a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda.
• Creating an "Early life" section, as appropriate.
• Moving his "Personal life" section towards the bottom of the article, which is pretty standard for Wikipedia articles.
• Ver's felony conviction for selling fireworks on eBay as a teenager in 1999, while notable, is not in any way related to why he became famous, nor is it an ongoing issue in his life. None of the articles that mention it, mention it as the focus of the article. It should not be in the introduction, in my opnion.
• Ver has publicly and repeatedly stated that he feels his criminal prosecution for the fireworks was politically motivated (Bloomberg source was provided for that). I think this should be included.
• Removing "Explosive charges" from the "Career" section. It was never part of his "career", and is misleading to have it there.
• Added note to word "Firework", since the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission refers to the product he sold as both "Fireworks" and "Agricultural Firecrackers" interchangeably. Users have discussed this in the Talk section and in my opinion it was appropriate, if not necessary, to add a small note for context.
• Ver was denied a visa to return to the US in 2015 (for non-criminal reasons), but it was resolved shortly after. You can literally pull up YouTube videos of him speaking at conferences in the U.S. well after 2015. Refusing to add this context is misleading, and creates a picture that Ver is somehow banned from entering the US due to either his firework conviction and/or citizenship renunciation.
• Ver should not be described as merely an "early promoter of bitcoin and bitcoin related startups" in the introduction. This is quite outdated and he has stated countless times publicly that he both promotes, and holds, numerous different cryptocurrencies, so long as they "support more economic freedom for the world". In fact he was a very early investor in Zcash, which is a fairly "old" cryptocurrency.
• Ver was an angel investor in the crptocurrency exchange Kraken.com.
• Ver was an early investor in the Zcash cryptocurrency.
• Ver is no longer a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. He is a black belt.
• Ver's father was a computer engineer.
• Numerous archived links added to citations; some links were even dead.
• Numerous new sources provided.
• Ver moved to Japan in 2006, 3 years after being released from prison, not 2005. (Bloomberg source provided for this). Also updated the most recent year that we know he still lives there (2023).
• Ver is fluent in Japanese (so long as we are going to keep mention of that fact that he moved to Japan years ago and lives there much of the year, it seems relevant to mention this).
• Re-routed a lot of hyperlinks. Example: In the sentence about Brazilian Ju Jitsu, I linked from word "Rank" to word "Black belt".
• Ver renounced his citizenship after becoming a St. Kitts and Nevis citizen, not after "obtaining a St. Kitts and Nevis passport". Very misleading wording. I also rerouted the hyperlinks from "St Kitts Passport" to "St. Kitts Citizenship Nationality Law".
• Renamed "MemoryDealers.com" in Career section to "Pre-Bitcoin", as appropriate, since he did numerous things in his career before getting involved in bitcoin (not just memorydealers).
• Mentioned Stanford university in early life.
• Mentioned career at Agilestar.com, not just Memory Dealers. He was founder and CEO of both.
• Mentioned creation of "Bitcoinstore.com"
• Mentioned how he heard of bitcoin and immediate aftermath.
• Mentioned that Jesse Powell was not mearly a high school friend, but the future founder and CEO of Kraken. I think this was far more relevant.
• Mentioning his purchasing of bitcoin.com in 2014.
• Updated Coinflex controversy. Yes I know sources are lacking, but for crying out loud the website is dead and closed. The Bloomberg articles are from a week after it paused withdrawals, 18 months ago. His lawsuit with Mark Lamb was settled. My edit along with a [citation needed] would be more appropriate than how it is now.
• Added a few sentences throughout the article describing his support for libertarian causes (which incidentally include bitcoin). Examples I included were a few of his large donations to various political causes and his own stated interest growing up.
• Generally, reworded a lot of sentences. Example: "He now primarily promotes Bitcoin Cash as Ver sees it as fulfilling the intended and original purpose of the "Bitcoin White Paper", first published in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto, in which Nakamoto referred to Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system." became the following: "He switched to promoting the Bitcoin fork Bitcoin Cash in 2017[2] as Ver sees it as fulfilling the intended and original purpose of Bitcoin as described in the 2009 Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, in which Nakamoto referred to Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system." In my opinion, this is much more accurate. Feel free to reword it if it is too long.
• Mentioned his deep criticism of government in the introduction, which is one of the most key aspects of his life. Every interview he's ever given he basically mentions this. It should be included in the intro.
• Removed the Australian tourist visa denial (which was for non-criminal reasons). Not notable and no mention of it online. This was one of the only few pieces of information that I actually removed from the article in all of my edits.

Also, in case you are unaware, Ver has a lot of detractors ever since 2017 because he switched his support from Bitcoin to Bicoin Cash (different coin). So there are a lot of members in the BTC community who don't like him. In my opinion, this is the reason why his article is constantly guarded by those who ensure he gets the worst possible presentation they can get away with. Wikipedia should neither be a hit piece or a puff piece.

@NinjaRobotPirate: NinjaPirateRobot, please read this talk page conversation. 58.97.215.166 (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

And actually, the Angel investor in Kraken thing (along with the Bloomberg source) was already in the page before I ever edited it. So ignore that point. 58.97.215.166 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The user also deleted a Bloomberg referenced sentence ("On 23 June 2022, CoinFlex paused withdrawals after a counterparty, which it later named as Ver, experienced liquidity issues and failed to repay a $47 million stablecoin margin call.") and replaced it with Ver's claims from a Youtube video. Unless there is an credible source (not from Ver), I believe the sentence should remain. MowerBreeze (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The other items that you have sources for, feel free to add them back to the article. Is 202.57.209.183 and 58.97.215.166 the same editors? I did revert edits that all appeared to be in the same timeframe from those two IPs. Your statement "Wikipedia should neither be a hit piece or a puff piece." is correct and I support this. Please make changes more slowly to the article so we can assist. Its difficult for me (and probably other editors) to collaborate where there are a large number of content changes made in one pass. I'll ping another frequent editor (and admin) David Gerard and maybe he can add a second set of eyes (and comment if I have done something wrong). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Black Belt vs. Brown Belt, if you dont have a source for that, it doesnt belong.
• Relating to twitter source, we are no longer using twitter sources on cryptocurrency articles.
• "he was an angel investor in Kraken, Jesse Powell was not just his "High School friend", but the future founder and CEO of the entire Kraken exchange," This you stated you have a bloomberg source, feel free to add it back, but later in your comment so say "So ignore that point.", so I am confused if you are proposing to add it or not. If you would like to add it back, please feel free, we like content that is well sourced from an RS like this.
• Relating to being the executive chairman of bitcoin.com, you provided a yahoo source that is a re-print of coindesk. You also provided an NYT source. We are using NYT sources for this genre, we are not using coindesk.
• On 23 June 2022, CoinFlex paused withdrawals after a counterparty I found is supported by Bloomberg. MowerBreeze did I remove this? If so, that was unintentional. That certainly can be re-added.

Apologies if my bulk restoration caused a hassle, that was not the intention. The intention was to restore wholesale promotional changes to this article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"On 23 June 2022, CoinFlex paused withdrawals after a counterparty I found is supported by Bloomberg. MowerBreeze did I remove this? If so, that was unintentional. That certainly can be re-added."

You didn't remove it, the user 58.97.215.166 did while making mass updates to the page. He replaced it with Ver's statements from a YouTube video, making it seem like Ver's version of events was the truth. IMO, the original sentence should have stood and not been deleted. MowerBreeze (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@MowerBreeze: please feel free to re-add it when you have time (if my restorations didnt achieve that goal already). Yes, there were many statements added by the article subject, making me wonder if these were COI edits, and that was the reason for my wholesale restoration of everything. Maybe the other editor(s) will return to discuss and we can add some of the content they wanted to add (and is properly sourced). Of course the article's subjects speeches on youtube are not going to get added unless covered by RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin Jesus

This term had been widely used in the crypto community. After his arrest the DOJ referred to him as this in his indictment and this term was picked up by many good RS (cnbc, wsj, etc). So now adding it as the nickname in the lead. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

update

An update on the ver case here at fox news. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)