I have enjoyed your comments and editorial assistance on my Sandi Jackson and Toni Preckwinkle articles. If you like local politics you might want to review my Jesse Jackson, Jr. article. I have also been working on a darkhorse contender to replace Hillary Clinton in the senate named Byron Brown. I have also had difficulty getting Jack Kemp through the FAC procedure.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I see that you edit Joe Moore. as a sidebar someone just added Nicholas Senn High School to the "schools in" list for Rogers Park. Isn't Senn in Edgewater??? Didn't want to edit until I was sure.-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Permalinks are at the bottom of newsbank articles. Copy the link from the bottom and not the address bar.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
At this page you can see the four "Ed Burke" that appeared at Olympic Games. At this page you can see that at Los Angeles 1984 Edward Burke (Athletics) was the flagbearer for USA. The number 1 and the numer 4 of the four "Ed Burke" that i linkjed were athletes, but the number 4 appeared at Athens 1896. Now the "right Ed Burke" is: Edward Andrew "Ed" Burke not the same. Thanks for your note, I'm going to fix it. ;-) -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 07:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1, which has not received much commentary.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As one of the primary editors of Park Grill, I was hoping that for the sake of the Millennium Park WP:FT, you would consider nominating it at WP:GAC.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I was misled by the photo and map in the Bean article. Park Grill already passed AFD, but if I had realized earlier, I would have piped down as the sculpture on the roof strongly points to notability, even though the building appears to belong to the city and not the operator of the Grill. Sorry! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit confused on what is going on with the Park Grill WP:GAC candidacy, but encourage you to continue your efforts. It seems that there is a backlog elimination drive that will enable you to get fairly rapid reviews this month. I put a query in to the reviewer at User_talk:Jezhotwells#Park_Grill_GAC to help me understand what is going on?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this article started
This user helped promote Park Grill to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia but I work for Gery Chico and he wanted some correction made to his Wiki page because some of the information is not correct. I've noticed that you reverted the page back to it's original state when I make changes. Is there a reason why my changes are be removed and what can I do to ensure that the changes stay? Would it be possible for you to make the changes if I sen the document to you?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejones0105 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy holidays, HughD! | |
Here's hoping your holiday season is a happy one. As one of the sources of troubles for you during the past year, I want to tell you that I have admired your tenacity and hard work on resolving concerns about the Chicago politician articles. You have my best wishes for the new year at Wikipedia -- and my sincere hopes for a few honest politicians in Cook County! Orlady ( talk) 04:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey! You have been doing a great job of keeping the Chicago politician pages current. Someone tagged Jesse Jackson, Jr. with a citation needed tag. I don't know if you noticed, but I'll leave it to you to figure out whatever needs to be done to address this.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me. We both are interested in CHGO articles and the Chicago Project. ``` Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Howdy again (I am the guy who signed up to review Richard Daley)- I wanted to let you know that there have been disputes about my GA reviews. A couple of the nominators have contested my reviews. (For reasons found here and on my talk page) I have been told by them to stop reviewing. However, I have also been complimented by my reviews at other times. I wanted to ask you if you were OK with me continuing my review of Daley, or if you rather I left it to someone else? (I apologize for any extra comments that my... reviewers might put below.) I'm sorry about this. Thanks. PrairieKid ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The Chicago Barnstar | ||
For your continuing hard work on keeping Chicago politician biographies up to date and beefing them up so that they are fairly detailed as exemplified by your recent WP:GA for Richard M. Daley. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
This user helped promote Richard M. Daley to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Richard M. Daley, which has recently become a GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! You are clearly passionate about this great city and have a talent for making good articles. I normally fight vandalism, but as part of WP:CITIES I've made it a goal to get Chicago to GA status. Was hoping maybe you could help me with the monuments section? As discussed on the talk page we want to narrow down this list and rewrite it using prose. I actually live in New York and most of these monuments don't have their own article, so it is difficult to say which ones are worth keeping in the main article. Are you familiar with these by any chance? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This article nominated by you is successfully promoted to GA status as it met the good article criteria. Keep up your good work :D Suri 100 ( talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Keep your good work! Suri 100 ( talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you! Hugh ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Helen Shiller to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Helen Shiller, which has recently become a WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Joseph Berrios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Berrios for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman ( talk) 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of the Davis Theater and for promoting the article to GA! Please let me know if you'd like to me to review any articles that you've been working on. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This user has contributed to Edward M. Burke good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Edward M. Burke, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This user has contributed to Joseph Berrios good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Joseph Berrios, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. But I know it's unknown whether her birthday is November 10, 1977 or 79. I also know the she is Mr. Bela Fleck's wife and they got a kid. Country Girl 19:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
You've been given a
Rochefort. (And I can damned well assure you that very few people get one of my beloved Rocheforts.) Hey, Hugh, don't feel this way, discussion is always intense at primary policy articles and they don't get much more primary than V. Yours was a good idea, though I disagree with it, so don't take my objections as a personal dismissal: You're a valued editor and I appreciate you working to benefit the encyclopedia. Cheers, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC) |
Ok, thanks for the beverage, I can taste the caring. I overreacted, sorry. Thanks again for starting the talk. I'm somewhat disappointed at the lack of dialog beyond one other fellow editor. Is that also characteristic of discussion of proposed edits of primary policy articles? Hugh ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, HughD. I work for Alderman Cardenas and he has a couple of changes he'd like to make it on his Wikipedia page. Is it possible for his office to send you a doc with the article he'd like to have? It would include all the sources you'd need. Otherwise, how can we do it ourselves? Thanks. Alba.anguiano ( talk) 19:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanx for the catch. Naraht ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi (I actually knew Harold Washington a little, good to see his name again). On the anti-capitalization effort going on at the movement pages I see you were persuaded by the selective list that Dicklyon gave. On his 16 examples (out of hundreds of sources) he forgot to mention that some of them come from a group called 'Civil Rights Movement Veterans', capitalized, and most of the examples he gave are from documents which don't mention the movement. This effort to confuse people with selective choices, choosing 16 out of hundreds, seems slanted (or, assuming good faith, triangle). Please do the research yourself, and you may find less reason to vote to change what has been a traditional name both on the web and on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:18 29 December, 2014 (UTC)
Hugh, at present it is you and I working on this issue. If I haven't convinced you perhaps WP:3O can help. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, there are 3 editors opposed to the conflated $83mm figure. Please don't add the material again. Edit warring is not the way to get an acceptable article. Again, I ask you to consider a note at the bottom of the page. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For your consideration, here is a paragraph, from ALEC, that needs improvement:
ALEC also has ties to the State Policy Network (SPN), a national association of conservative and libertarian think-tanks. SPN is a member of ALEC. [63] SPN members are encouraged to join ALEC.[64] The SPN regularly sponsors annual meetings for ALEC, and a number of SPN's active affiliates are members of both organizations. Some of the think tanks in the SPN write model legislation, which then is introduced at ALEC's private meetings.[65] The Guardian described ALEC as "SPN's sister organisation."[66]"
My beef? This is a series of random bits of information lacking prose. (And is the Guardian commentary helpful?) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, these tags are meaningless for us at present because the article has attention and on-going improvements. In the normal course of Wikipedia improvement such tags get indexed so that interested editors, e.g., WP:GNOMES, can find them in the WP:BACKLOG and work on them. Please, let's do the backlog Gnomes a favor and remove the tags. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, on the ALEC talk page you added your signature after the first paragraph and at the end of each numbered list item. While the time stamps (16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)) are all the same, the different signatures suggest that the numbers or items were added at different times. Also, at 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) you signed two of the three numbered items and the last last paragraph. Without looking closely, these multiple signatures can be confusing to the reader. I recommend signing once, at the end. When you create a numbered or bulleted list, please just add the signature after the list. It will look like this:
Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're not happy with my block of this most recent (I think it's the most recent, although there could already be two or three others) incarnation of the "Michigan Kid", bring it up at WP:ANI. WP:SPI is inappropriate for discussing IP blocks where there is no parent. I'm going to hat the discussion on the IP's talk page, as being an inappropriate venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
HughD, I've seen you removing citations when revising various lead sections. Please look at WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, I'm happy to note that you thank me for my edits. And I'm sure that you actually appreciate all (almost) of my edits. With this in mind there is no need to thank me so much. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are noted and appreciated as well. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Donors Capital Fund. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. With this edit [2] you are injecting your own personal view that DCF and DT are similar ("Like Donors Trust..."). Jeez! – S. Rich ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, I request that you read a couple of essays if you haven't already, those on citation overkill and bombardment. Comments such as this one (" add additional notable, neutral, verifiable reliable source for notability") suggest that you're adding sources not for verifiability, but for notability, which leads to a cluttered and weaker article (as explained in those essays). If someone is claiming that something should be excluded on notability/noteworthiness/balance grounds and you have sources you believe rebut those arguments, then please present the redundant sources at article talk rather than adding them to the article itself. Thanks. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to say this, but you seem unable to comprehend your obvious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so
Your recent editing history at Center for Media and Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have never taken an article to GA. While I didn't create the article, I have worked on it a lot. Have you taken an article to GA? Any suggestions? Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Glad I could help. To be honest, I am still a novice, as you can probably tell from my user page. I see you've been editing on WP for quite some time. I primarily work on Gun show loophole and will probably continue to do so until it gets GA status. LB and I are sort of co-founders on that one. Kind of a tough subject for a rookie, but "gun politics" is what got me started here in the first place. It can be a lot of drama too, sometimes (Have you seen how long the GSL talk page is?). Anyway, I think we are close to our (GA) goal over there and I'm kind of prospecting some new articles to work on, and it's nice to meet other editors with the same interests. I don't know how much experience you have working on these types of articles, but I can see that you've already stepped into some 3RR issues. Debating over sources is sometimes best left to RSN when you are "outnumbered" on a particular topic. I can tell you from my limited experience that it's much easier if you have someone knowledgeable, that you trust, by your side, to help you avoid the BAIT and keep things CIVIL. So, I'm here if you need to talk or vent, just remember that even though there's no such thing as privacy around here, honesty certainly helps us to deal with stress and avoid hitting the save button a little too soon. Cheers! Darknipples ( talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Stay sharp Darknipples ( talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Hugh, as you may know, under the 2013 revisions to DS the alert template I posted in the prior thread is a "no fault" FYI type of template. Hopefully, at this user talk page thread you can acknowledge that many people identify the IP as a case of WP:Long term abuse and that many people would like to find a solution. If you think a better solution needs to be found, please express the sentiments without running others down. If you'd accept a suggestion, please leave the sarcasm at home when making your points. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for analysis and reason at best, and at worst looks like personal attacks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
So file a complaint about admin abuse, but you'd better look out for boomerangs if you single AR out and ignore the others. I noticed you left out the part about Anna first trying to talk to the IP but ultimately in her concluding remarks saying "If all of this is to justify your strategy, don't bother. I cannot condone it. If you saying the path of getting unblocked is not something you will pursue, then we don't need to continue this."
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that you are trying, good luck. However, he used at least four different ips last night for his rapid fire, mostly trivial edits. Keep on truckin' :) Vsmith ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, you seem pretty up on Illinois politics and such, what's going to happen in the Chicago Mayor's race? Rahm going to be reelected? Capitalismojo ( talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hugh, At Global warming last year there was widespread agreement the entire article needs to be updated for IPCC AR5 (2014), and the lead especially needs an overhaul. Whether I did a good job or bad job, I at least sheparded the discussion through a review/tweaking of the hatnote and lead paragraph 1 (as minorly tweaked since Dec). If IP rehabilitation doesn't work out, would you be interested in channeling your energy toward updating that article ? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. |
Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing this article Mathias 'Paddy' Bauler about a crooked Chicago alderman - want to help? There's been a lot written about him Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
I am vowing to follow the guideline at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. I hope I succeed. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say: I am not interested in going through and adding political conspiracy theories about George Soros across Wikipedia. It's not the kind of thing that gets me going, and in my opinion, it would be against the spirit of Wikipedia.
My point is that there should be some consistency across these pages that makes it more difficult for pages to violate NPOV. The fact is, most Wikipedia editors are liberal and male, so making the argument that 'I should be able to add bias to pages because the right-wing editors should be able to do the same thing' doesn't fly.
Is this a policy that has been considered before? If not, I would propose a loose top-three donor rule. It's a completely unbiased way to include donors onto a page without allowing biased editors to cherrypick politically convenient donors. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! :) This discussion is mostly about donations to non-profits, many of which have thousands of donors. My concern is that someone might (or rather, has been) cherrypicking politically convenient donors who may be relatively small donors. I'm interested in coming up with a loosely-defined policy that makes bias more difficult to insert into political pages.
I have not for quite some time (until about 3 days ago) edited pages related to U.S. politics. It's not something I have kept interest in. But I am interested in preserving the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia, so when I see systematic inclusion of bias into only one particular type of page, it concerns me.
It seems to me that a fair, politically-unbiased solution would be to have the top-three donors on each page, rather than giving a potentially politically-motivated editor full discretion to cherrypick whichever donors he wants. And I can't speak as to whether conservatives are proud to bag a donation from the Kochs. I don't know enough about the subject.
True, I think a noticeboard would be more appropriate. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hugh. Re this edit, you've reverted me and others before to restore unnecessary sources "for noteworthiness." As a general matter it's not typical to add sources to establish that a fact is noteworthy. If there's a dispute about the relative importance of the content it can be discussed on the article talk page without cluttering up the article itself. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note, why are you reverting me to re-add a FreedomWorks press release? I understand your policy-based argument, but why would you want that? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Editor laudabilis | |
Thanks for keeping us all posted with your explanatory Edit notes on the Americans for Prosperity project! BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm just wondering why my edits on Americans for Prosperity are continuing to be reverted by you. I'm solely working on improving the article's neutrality by reducing bias. I understand that, from your perspective, "Koch funding is the aspect of the subject of this article," but I believe that you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to this subject. It's completely possible to give equal weight to both sides of the subject, and according to Wikipedia policy that is how each article and their subjects should be represented. Hope we can work this out... Cheers! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, Just a quick note. You can just say "add ref" in edit summaries. We all assume that any ref added by you (or other veteran editors) will be noteworthy and reliable by definition. If people disagree that it is "noteworthy and reliable" the edit summary won't disuade them from disagreeing and even when it is obviously RS the summary comes off as a little ...I don't know... "Noteworthy ref for noteworthiness" seems a bit redundant. Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts. Have a great weekend. Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hugh please, please don't insert material at a later time between two previous comments. I find that it is generally disruptive and can throw off the meaning of the thread. If you find it neccesary to insert later material between two edits (and it can be necessary occasionally), it is best to indicate that you have inserted it by starting the addition with (insert) or (inserted). Also if someone has replied to a comment, it is better to continue below the additional material and not insert material above the latest edit. This also can throw off the discussion a great deal. This may seem like just a little small thing but it would be a help. Thanks for your consideration. Capitalismojo ( talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Because you are now a moving target, I suggest limiting yourself to WP:1RR per article (or ideally, per day). That way, you can avoid allegations of edit warring. Viriditas ( talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Bernard Stone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bernard Stone for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
HughD, your easy disposition and even responses from inside the hornet's nest are certainly a model for others. I will remember this stellar conduct when tempted otherwise in the future. - Darouet ( talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you, but I am not worthy. Hugh ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [ [3]] Springee ( talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, upon reviewing the second ANI discussion, the first ANI discussion, Talk:Americans for Prosperity and the now arguments over the closing attempts at the RFC, I am now imposing a two-week topic ban against you on anything related to Americans for Prosperity. This including any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever. Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks, which will have zero overall affect in the campaign season long-term, will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space. I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope (Fred Koch and whatever else are not included) as I'm presuming that you have enough sense not to try to argue the same things in other ways and you can conduct yourself on other articles without the same attitude and arguments. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bernard Stone at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Bernard Stone, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You have reached the point of edit warring with multiple editors. Please discuss rather than reinserting. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:ACDS applies to The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks, both WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. I strongly recommend you review the ArbCom findings. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Having failed consensus at one article, it is hardly a good idea to then try to insert that same material across a dozen other articles. Please cease. Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, as a reminder, about the prior topic ban, I stated "I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope". Instead, you chose to represent this as "a recommendation to step back" from said article which you stated as part of another Arbitration Enforcement Request against another editor (something which I do not find remotely amusing or cute). Misleading others by pretending that you were in some way, shape or form stepping back from the dispute, so that you look better as part of this enforcement tit-for-tat game is not appropriate.
Furthermore, the fact that you would welcome a user with the username User:Kochtruth and encourage this behavior without a second thought is enough. I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Now you care about your conduct at AE. What more is there with Kochtruth beyond "hey, you picked a name that will cause an argument here, go pick something else and then you're free to go into that topic area and do the same thing and face the sanctions that everyone else gets from someone else"? "Good" new editors don't just wake up one day, pick names that are that partisan, create sandboxes of court filings, Senate reports and regulatory ruling and then dump that into hotbed articles and get into arguments about it. A "good" editor actually wants a useful encyclopedia so that a child in the third world or some rural town USA without access to a local library or without buying an encyclopedia can learn about ancient history or their favorite fictional character or write an report for school or about the US president in a neutral, factually fair way by people who are seemingly adult reviewing and discussing issues because they just want information known for everyone else.
You do realize that sanctions can escalate to include outright blocks and bans, right? You realize that there is a very, very broad set of discretionary sanctions against all post-1932 US politics articles? People hate this behavior that much over this broad a spectrum. When I say "those" kinds of articles, I mean those broad, broad, broad range of articles. I've given you mountains of leeway here. Please do not act like I'm blind. I didn't care about the delay, I had zero involvement in the manner, I've probably never dealt with Arthur Rubin, I don't know if I ever even read the Americans for Prosperity page, I didn't even care that you filed a report on the same article since the ban was over. The point was, you chose to lie about why your nonsense stopped when asked about the delay (it was the sole article I topic banned you from, I think it's mighty relevant) and if you want to play dumb, fine but none of the admins even caught on (including one who was the last person you were badgering when the topic ban was imposed) nor should they particularly have because no one should have to look up all this crap just to check on you. I'm presuming that you just have a blind spot on this topic because you edit elsewhere and I haven't checked into it. But everyone here is a volunteer and if you simply think that your work is so righteous that you're justified in lying or misleading or just lazy with words or just wasting god know how many people's time just to win an inch by inch battle in this stupidity, think again, you're not. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is unjustified. No evidence of topic ban violation. No edits in same topic as topic ban. Block did not include my sandbox. Blocking editor is mistaken: block is Tea Party movement, not American politics. Block is over-the-top harassment; an emotional reaction to finding notes for a draft DS appeal in my sandbox. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Please do not accuse me of an emotional reaction to your draft appeal. Again, my major concern was the draft contents but those weren't new. The Citizens United article itself may or may not be in the scope of the topic but there's no indication of any ARBCOM sanctions about it on the talk page so I've learnt towards an unblock with an apology about misunderstanding what the drafting contents were coming from. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD your explanation about the sandbox seems reasonable. It does seem as though you were just making room, the copy and paste nature of the move made it less than clear that it was old content. I have posted a message to Ricky81682 asking for clarification about the other edits of concern. I want to discuss the matter with him prior to doing anything. It appears he is asleep right now but do not worry I will not forget about you. Chillum 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Our article Citizens United v. FEC is not within scope of WP:ARBTPM, no matter how broadly construed, unless perhaps the construer is in a deeply frustrated state of mind. Our article Citizens United v. FEC makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Our article Tea Party movement makes no mention of Citizens United v. FEC. Our article Citizens United v. FEC is about a Supreme Court of the United States decision, not about a tea party group; but, in fact, our article Citizens United makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs and our article Tea Party movement makes no mention of Citizens United. My recent contribution to our article Citizens United v. FEC was in good faith, constructive, neutral, verifiable, well-referenced, and makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs; please see diff. There was no violation of the topic ban. Hugh ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User:HughD/donorstrust makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Hugh ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've unblocked HughD. I think there are enough direct articles on the topic that a block for an indirect connection is not needed at the moment. My apologies though for the complete misunderstanding of what you were doing with the draft content: it's unusual for me to see anyone draft bits and pieces of content in sandboxes so I thought it was just a new article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
On 30 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bernard Stone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 38-year tenure of Bernard "Berny" Stone as Alderman from the 50th Ward in the Chicago City Council spanned seven Chicago Mayors, including two Mayors Daley? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Stone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago-style politics (meme) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Springee ( talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
HughD, I see you are reverting edits of mine. I would ask that you respect the voluntary interaction band that we discussed in the ANI. Here you are reverting edits that two editors (myself as one) have said should not be reverted [ [18]]. There is are current discussions regarding the use of the MJ article you are adding back to articles. [ [19]],[ [20]],[ [21]]. The discussions are here [22] and [23]. My read on the consensus is that the article can only be used in limited ways. Springee ( talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you're currently banned from editing "all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." You've recently been editing on Institute for Energy Research, which is in the Koch orbit, according to the article: "Both IER and the American Energy Alliance are partly funded by the Koch Brothers and their donor network, according to Politico's research, sources - and to reports by Koch-controlled charitable foundations themselves." Isn't it a violation of your topic ban to edit this article? Safehaven86 ( talk) 18:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
HughD, your recent edits here are on a page that you previously linked with the Koch brothers and the Donor's Trust. [27] I believe this is a violation of your edit ban. {{ Safehaven86's recent ARE related to your violations [28] was concluded by Callanecc with the following warning, "I'm going to AGF here and warn rather than block, but any further violations are very likely to result in a block." It does not appear that you are taking that warning seriously. Springee ( talk) 13:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I've filed a request concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Safehaven86 ( talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to an AE request filed against you I am warning you to pay more attention to the terms of your ban from the Tea Party movement to ensure that you do not breach it. If you breach your topic ban again, even if just minor, it is very likely you will be blocked. As this is a sanction you may appeal it per the instructions here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please remove my quote from your home page. Springee ( talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would make more sense to create a separate article about the Searle Freedom Trust. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits on [32] violate the 3RR rule. Please correct this oversight. Springee ( talk) 01:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Springee ( talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Watchdog.org, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transparency. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm blocking you for one week for deliberate violation of your topic ban on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity with this edit and more. As I shouldn't have to remind you, your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general. You were already warned once before about violating the ban including statements that you would self-revert but it seems that more stringent sanctions are warranted. Again, the topic ban is related to Tea party politics broadly so stop arguing technicalities about whether the word "Kochs" are in the article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The ban is more broad than just the Koch brothers. It is against all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly. That said, I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity or Sam Adams Alliance. The closest is that the Sam Adams Alliance founder Eric O'Keefe (political activist) is a board member for Citizens for Self-Governance founded by Mark Meckler who founded Tea Party Patriots but that's just paranoia at that point. There should be leeway to edit there unless there's evidence that it's becoming a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block under an unfortunate mis-impression that Donors Trust is directly related to the Tea Party movement. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC) In discussion, block justification switched to Kochs. Block under an unfortunate mis-impression that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is related to the Koch. Blocking admin specifically ruled Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out-of-scope of topic ban prior to edits "no issue". Blocking admin extended topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust without notice. No violation of topic ban as per WP:TBAN. In discussion, block justification switched to ownership behavior, socking, and role account. No ownership, socking, or role account. Block is not necessary to prevent disruption. Request community discussion at arbitration enforcement as per WP:AEBLOCK. Appeal template below. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This is an arbitration enforcement block and has to be appealed as is going on below. No administrator can overturn this block until there is a successful appeal. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
No "deliberate violation" of topic ban. Topic ban is under WP:ARBTPM. Scope of topic ban is "...any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers..."
The block notice and discretionary sanctions log entry cited an edit to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban. No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Evidence that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban includes, most strongly, an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking admin that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban User talk:Ricky81682#Question on scope of ban: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity...There should be leeway to edit there..." Additionally, Wikipedia article space, edit history 18:35, 10 July 2013, 17:13 6 March 2015. and talk page discussion clearly demonstrates community consensus that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not related to the Kochs.
The block notice stated reason is "...adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs..." Article Donors Trust was not edited. Donors Trust is not directly related to the Tea Party movement. Koch family foundations have contributed to Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund, the whole point of which is that no relationship may be inferred between a specific grantor and a specific grantee. The banning/blocking admin extended the topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust, without consensus and without notice and without logging, and then blocked retroactively for violation of the extended topic ban.
In discussion of the block subsequent to the block notice, the banning/blocking admin advanced various alternative justifications for the block, including suspected use of a role account, socking, and ownership behavior, which charges can be address upon request if necessary.
Respectfully request please unblock. I am appealing this block in order to clear my name and to return to making valuable contributions to our project. The block is not necessary to prevent disruption. Thank you.
Mmm, I'm not prepared to decline this request myself, but it seems that even though the article doesn't say anything about its relationship with TPM, Franklin Center is acting in the same area of taxes and their spending with is the pet peeve of tea partyers. Thus, it falls under the typical wording of topic bans, which say "related to [...], broadly construed".
Max Semenik (
talk) 06:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
Thoughts? Hugh ( talk) 14:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
First, stop saying "Our". I'm presuming you aren't actually an inappropriate WP:ROLE account. Otherwise you're expressing serious WP:OWN issues. Second, I remind you that your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Third, I'd say you're being ridiculously disingenuous about this and have responded on your talk page with a one-week block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not respond to your charge of role account, since you couched it in "presumably you aren't" and because frankly it seemed so far fetched to me I did not take it seriously. Do you think I am a reincarnation of User:Kochtruth? Are you now adding role account or socking to your evolving block notice? Are you adding the word "our" to your ban? May I note that in your post above from your talk page you clearly state that the block was for editing related to the TPM, not the Kochs, as you did in your block notice above on this page. May I respectfully ask, were you angry when you wrote this? It reads kind of angry to me. I did not take this comment on your talk page too too seriously because frankly it read like you were angry, and the "ridiculously disingenuous" comment made me think you were angry because you thought I was gaming you. I can understand why you might have thought I was gaming you, but I was not. If you were angry, that's ok, I can accept that, admins are human, too.
I don't think you are being fair to me. You told me an article was out of scope, I edited it, you changed your mind, and then you blocked me. You thought Donors Trust was a Tea Party movement player. That's ok, admins are human, no one can master every topic area in WP. Although I fully understand it is not an excuse and is not determinative in this context, I respectfully ask for consideration of the fact that the three edits of mine with which you have expressed concern in the discussion of this block have all stuck, they are all improvements to our project. I think it is best at this point for you to unblock. It is only a few days now but it would mean a lot to me going forward if you would unblock. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You mistakenly told me Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope. You mistakenly believed Donors Trust was a Tea Party movement player. You mistakenly thought I was gaming your topic ban. I was not. I do not think you were trying to entrap me. But your reluctance to acknowledge your own role, and the role of human error, in these events, and unblock, has me considering non-AGF thoughts. Please unblock. Although it is only a few days now, it would mean a lot to me if I were unblocked, and if you were the one to unblock; it would mean a lot to me in terms of our relationship, you and me, and my relationship to our project. Thank you for your reconsideration. Hugh ( talk) 14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "this shouldn't be a game where HughD asks me to examine article after article and I have to solve the tenuous connections that may or may not be there when HughD knows full well that they exist and even makes it my fault that I missed the connection so HughD should be allowed to edit freely on the topic." You are right, I understand the domain better than you, no reflection on you, but you should listen to me. You know who else knows the domain better than you? Champaign Supernova. And I fully accept that I am primarily responsible for understanding "Koch broadly construed." Although your original block notice was not based on the Kochs, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity connection to the Kochs is apparently very obvious and very important to you, so please allow me to provide some background.
A money trail donor -> Donors Trust -> org is extraordinary difficult to document, which is the whole point of Donors Trust after all. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund; contributors to Donors Trust describe/specify/recommend the ultimate grantee. Funds generally must disclose their transfers to other funds such as Donors Trust, and Donors Trust must disclose their grantees, but only very, very occasionally can we reliably state that a given donor contributed to a given org via Donors Trust. See Searle Freedom Trust for an exception that proves the rule. As required by law, Searle disclosed that they contributed to Donors Trust, but also chose to disclose that their contribution was earmarked to fund a court challenge to affirmative action, and a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source wrote about it, and we included it in our project. We have no reliable sources that speak to a Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity connection to the Kochs. It is counter-factual and completely unreasonable for you to extend your Koch topic ban to "second level links" to all organizations funded by Donors Trust.
And by the way Champaign Supernova and Arthur Rubin are involved editors at Donors Trust and know this "full well." I am not the one taking advantage of a completely understandable short fall in fully comprehending the complexities of this domain. When they want to enforce a topic ban, the Kochtopus is suddenly legion. Hugh ( talk) 18:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The appeal is declined. Your options for further review are explained at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for working on the article. It is not neutral for the article to start off with a cite to a Politico article that is baldly critical of ThinkProgress. Other than ThinkProgress's own description of itself (which we previously cited to under WP:SPS), can you find a WP:RS that would be a better cite to use in the opening paragraph? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
HughD, as I stated at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement, Watchdog.org violates your topic ban and your editing is a violation of the topic ban. You are banned from any activity about the topic, not from making particular edits with certain words. The discussion at Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent_assessments_of_partisanship shows that you know full well that certain sources about Watchdog.org already do and are going to involve the Koch brothers and rather than stay away from the page entirely, you're trying to create a patchwork of editing so that you are never in the most technical of violations of the ban. This is a waste of everyone's time to police. However, rather than going to a two-week block, my sanction is going to be to redefine and expand the topic ban to hopefully make it more clear what articles are and which are not a violation of the ban. As such, you are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016. I'm not resetting the time period for what that's worth and in case it isn't abundantly clear this topic ban does include Watchdog.com so any further editing is a violation of that ban. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Do not delete my talk page comments. If you wish to move them ask me. I see no policy that says relevant, recent noticeboard discussions can not be added to the header so long as it is done in a neutral fashion. Do not accuse other editors of trying to be disruptive. That is not assuming good faith. Springee ( talk) 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
HughD, your recent edits to Exxon Mobile are a 3RR violation. Please self revert and move your views to the talk page. I apologies for violating you talk page ban to deliver this request. Springee ( talk) 12:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Again, this does not accuse you of any impropriety; I just want to make sure you aren't caught unawares. There are so many of these discretionary sanctions floating around that it can be hard to keep up. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Per this closure at AE. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Hugh ( talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)|decline=Procedurally closing this request, since it's been copied to WP:AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}}
Appeal copied to WP:AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by HughDNo violation of topic ban. No disruptive behavior. Good faith edits. Harassment by complainant. Misrepresentations by involved editors in statements in request for enforcement. No consensus for closure of harassing request for enforcement. No consensus for block. Lack of proportionality. Block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to our project. Repeated offer to apologize and strike through ignored. Respectfully request unblock. Thank you. Statement by EdJohnstonStatement by Arthur RubinAs should be obvious, there is little accurate in Hugh's statement. To note one of the more obvious errors, he says he "offered to strike" a violation. He had plenty of opportunity to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughDIt appears to me that the ban is an attempt by certain editors, who disagree with HughD, to silence him. I have looked for evidence of wrongdoing by HughD but I can't find any. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by HughD
|
The above appeal has been closed but there is no result. What does this mean? Biscuittin ( talk) 17:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is HughD continually being banned? I've been looking at his edits and I can't find anything the least bit controversial. His editing is so neutral that I don't know whether he is left or right or whether he is pro-green or anti-green. What is going on here? Biscuittin ( talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm also wondering the same thing as Biscuittin. Why some people get blocked and banned so often when other people seem to be the ones who are uncivil and mean and violating policy. SageRad ( talk) 06:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:ExxonMobil, including in sections Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general, Neutrality, and Change in article project quality without discussion. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at User talk:SageRad, including your 8 January 2016 alert for WP:ARBCC and in section In which an editor with a strong POV about the fossil fuel industry makes accusations toward me. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Ping editor @ SageRad: Hugh ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:Climate change denial, including in sections Do changes in the consensus over time create deniers?, relation to climate adaptation, Title, and Scientific opinion vs. the opinion of some scientists. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, including in sections Academics paid for their work product ( 9 December 2015) and Tom Quirk ( 20:03 7 January 2016, 20:04 7 January 2016, 23:34 7 January 2016, and 8 January 2016). Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comment of 7 January 2016 in reply to a thread started by @ Biscuittin: at Talk:Global cooling in section Definition of Global cooling. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have alreadly taken this blanket action on ALL my comments since my voluntary Tban began. Feel free to add your remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comment of 6 November 2015 at Talk:Global warming controversy#Primarily. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI please add any additional remarks to the AE filing against myself. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
HughD, we met in the Koch suite of articles. I just saw this AE and my heart sank. I am so sorry !!! what a loss! You are one of the most patient and civil, firmly quality rooted editors in the political arena that I have encountered. I am f... aghast ! It's awful, this sectarian partisan, reactionary BS going on on WP. (if it's of any relief to you: I was TB'ed from GMO and agricultural chemicals like Sage Rad for editing on pesticides and bringing a terribly uncivil editor to justice- I never did anything on the so called GMO pages).-- Wuerzele ( talk) 00:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are banned from my talk page, and have been repeatedly reminded. Hugh ( talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are banned from my talk page. Hugh ( talk) 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hugh, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, -- Gnom ( talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
You were let off with a warning by Callanecc in October 2015 for violating your conservative U.S. politics/Koch topic ban, in part by editing Institute for Energy Research. In the arbitration enforcement, you wrote: "Sorry about this. My mistakes. I understand the ban. I am not trying to circumvent it. I will try to be more careful. Avoiding the Kochs is hard sometimes." Yet today, I notice you've again edited Institute for Energy Research, an article which contains substantial information on conservative U.S. politics and the Kochs. It appears that you're either willfully ignoring the ban, or lack the competence to avoid editing in areas where you're restricted. I will give you a chance to self-revert your recent topic ban violations, but if you don't, I'll have to file a WP:AE request against you, and I will seek stronger remedies than a topic ban, because unfortunately your numerous instances over many months of violating the ban show the community you're not apparently capable of complying with one. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you renamed Category:ExxonMobil controversies to Category:ExxonMobil history. As a potentially controversial move, it should not to be done without discussion. Also, there is is a special procedure for deleting, merging or renaming categories which should be followed. Therefore I would request you to undue your unilateral renaming and to start the proper procedure according to the WP:CFD. Beagel ( talk) 16:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article, until Jan 1, 2017.
You have been sanctioned Due to ongoing editing on fringes of conservative US politics.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Zad
68
14:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Note--The AE request concerning you is now closed, with the modifications to the scope and length of the ban as per above. Please do not add anything else to the closed AE request. Appeal information was supplied above. Thanks...
Zad
68
10:41 am, Today (UTC−4)
Notice of ARE related to your edits [34]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
In addition:
If you should continue violating your topic ban (whether you agree you violated it or not), future sanctions will grow increasingly severe very swiftly. I would strongly encourage you to contact an uninvolved administrator before editing in any potential grey area again, but it is ultimately up to you to follow the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Request unblock from WP:AE and WP:ARC in order to participate in discussion of currently open appeal, or an unblock with a voluntary block from article space and article talk. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Hugh ( talk) 14:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is still no appeal to be copied over. Please do not make the same request again without at least an appeal to copy over. SQL Query me! 03:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global Climate Coalition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Global Climate Coalition you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Global Climate Coalition for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just curious about any harassment you've seen on wikipedia. Maybe it's sexism, racism, science denial, etc. Would love to hear from someone that is topic banned from so many important sections of this site which shows up as #1 on google searches by claiming to be unbiased and accurate. POC2016 ( talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Global Climate Coalition you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Global Climate Coalition for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 04:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, HughD. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you.
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HughD
I have blocked you indefinitely as you have been using 35.164.239.14 ( talk · contribs) to avoid your topic ban. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the above block HughD has used additional IP addresses (also blocked) [ [35]], [ [36]], [ [37]]
A history of the IP addresses HughD has used can be seen both in the SPI logs as well as here [ [38]], here [ [39]] and here [ [40]]. Springee ( talk) 01:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This user has continued to engage in block evasion as of July, 2017. As such, s/he would not be eligible under WP:SO until 2018 at the earliest. -- Yamla ( talk) 12:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This user has engaged in block evasion in September, 2017. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
A sock puppet investigation that involves this account has been filed here: [ [41]] Springee ( talk) 18:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
See this. -- NeilN talk to me 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet. Thank you. User:Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have enjoyed your comments and editorial assistance on my Sandi Jackson and Toni Preckwinkle articles. If you like local politics you might want to review my Jesse Jackson, Jr. article. I have also been working on a darkhorse contender to replace Hillary Clinton in the senate named Byron Brown. I have also had difficulty getting Jack Kemp through the FAC procedure.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I see that you edit Joe Moore. as a sidebar someone just added Nicholas Senn High School to the "schools in" list for Rogers Park. Isn't Senn in Edgewater??? Didn't want to edit until I was sure.-- Buster7 ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Permalinks are at the bottom of newsbank articles. Copy the link from the bottom and not the address bar.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
At this page you can see the four "Ed Burke" that appeared at Olympic Games. At this page you can see that at Los Angeles 1984 Edward Burke (Athletics) was the flagbearer for USA. The number 1 and the numer 4 of the four "Ed Burke" that i linkjed were athletes, but the number 4 appeared at Athens 1896. Now the "right Ed Burke" is: Edward Andrew "Ed" Burke not the same. Thanks for your note, I'm going to fix it. ;-) -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 07:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1, which has not received much commentary.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As one of the primary editors of Park Grill, I was hoping that for the sake of the Millennium Park WP:FT, you would consider nominating it at WP:GAC.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I was misled by the photo and map in the Bean article. Park Grill already passed AFD, but if I had realized earlier, I would have piped down as the sculpture on the roof strongly points to notability, even though the building appears to belong to the city and not the operator of the Grill. Sorry! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit confused on what is going on with the Park Grill WP:GAC candidacy, but encourage you to continue your efforts. It seems that there is a backlog elimination drive that will enable you to get fairly rapid reviews this month. I put a query in to the reviewer at User_talk:Jezhotwells#Park_Grill_GAC to help me understand what is going on?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this article started
This user helped promote Park Grill to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia but I work for Gery Chico and he wanted some correction made to his Wiki page because some of the information is not correct. I've noticed that you reverted the page back to it's original state when I make changes. Is there a reason why my changes are be removed and what can I do to ensure that the changes stay? Would it be possible for you to make the changes if I sen the document to you?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejones0105 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy holidays, HughD! | |
Here's hoping your holiday season is a happy one. As one of the sources of troubles for you during the past year, I want to tell you that I have admired your tenacity and hard work on resolving concerns about the Chicago politician articles. You have my best wishes for the new year at Wikipedia -- and my sincere hopes for a few honest politicians in Cook County! Orlady ( talk) 04:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC) |
This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey! You have been doing a great job of keeping the Chicago politician pages current. Someone tagged Jesse Jackson, Jr. with a citation needed tag. I don't know if you noticed, but I'll leave it to you to figure out whatever needs to be done to address this.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me. We both are interested in CHGO articles and the Chicago Project. ``` Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Howdy again (I am the guy who signed up to review Richard Daley)- I wanted to let you know that there have been disputes about my GA reviews. A couple of the nominators have contested my reviews. (For reasons found here and on my talk page) I have been told by them to stop reviewing. However, I have also been complimented by my reviews at other times. I wanted to ask you if you were OK with me continuing my review of Daley, or if you rather I left it to someone else? (I apologize for any extra comments that my... reviewers might put below.) I'm sorry about this. Thanks. PrairieKid ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The Chicago Barnstar | ||
For your continuing hard work on keeping Chicago politician biographies up to date and beefing them up so that they are fairly detailed as exemplified by your recent WP:GA for Richard M. Daley. TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
This user helped promote Richard M. Daley to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Richard M. Daley, which has recently become a GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there! You are clearly passionate about this great city and have a talent for making good articles. I normally fight vandalism, but as part of WP:CITIES I've made it a goal to get Chicago to GA status. Was hoping maybe you could help me with the monuments section? As discussed on the talk page we want to narrow down this list and rewrite it using prose. I actually live in New York and most of these monuments don't have their own article, so it is difficult to say which ones are worth keeping in the main article. Are you familiar with these by any chance? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This article nominated by you is successfully promoted to GA status as it met the good article criteria. Keep up your good work :D Suri 100 ( talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Keep your good work! Suri 100 ( talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you! Hugh ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Helen Shiller to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Helen Shiller, which has recently become a WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Joseph Berrios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Berrios for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman ( talk) 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of the Davis Theater and for promoting the article to GA! Please let me know if you'd like to me to review any articles that you've been working on. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This user has contributed to Edward M. Burke good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Edward M. Burke, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This user has contributed to Joseph Berrios good articles on Wikipedia. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Joseph Berrios, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. But I know it's unknown whether her birthday is November 10, 1977 or 79. I also know the she is Mr. Bela Fleck's wife and they got a kid. Country Girl 19:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
You've been given a
Rochefort. (And I can damned well assure you that very few people get one of my beloved Rocheforts.) Hey, Hugh, don't feel this way, discussion is always intense at primary policy articles and they don't get much more primary than V. Yours was a good idea, though I disagree with it, so don't take my objections as a personal dismissal: You're a valued editor and I appreciate you working to benefit the encyclopedia. Cheers, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC) |
Ok, thanks for the beverage, I can taste the caring. I overreacted, sorry. Thanks again for starting the talk. I'm somewhat disappointed at the lack of dialog beyond one other fellow editor. Is that also characteristic of discussion of proposed edits of primary policy articles? Hugh ( talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, HughD. I work for Alderman Cardenas and he has a couple of changes he'd like to make it on his Wikipedia page. Is it possible for his office to send you a doc with the article he'd like to have? It would include all the sources you'd need. Otherwise, how can we do it ourselves? Thanks. Alba.anguiano ( talk) 19:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanx for the catch. Naraht ( talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi (I actually knew Harold Washington a little, good to see his name again). On the anti-capitalization effort going on at the movement pages I see you were persuaded by the selective list that Dicklyon gave. On his 16 examples (out of hundreds of sources) he forgot to mention that some of them come from a group called 'Civil Rights Movement Veterans', capitalized, and most of the examples he gave are from documents which don't mention the movement. This effort to confuse people with selective choices, choosing 16 out of hundreds, seems slanted (or, assuming good faith, triangle). Please do the research yourself, and you may find less reason to vote to change what has been a traditional name both on the web and on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:18 29 December, 2014 (UTC)
Hugh, at present it is you and I working on this issue. If I haven't convinced you perhaps WP:3O can help. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, there are 3 editors opposed to the conflated $83mm figure. Please don't add the material again. Edit warring is not the way to get an acceptable article. Again, I ask you to consider a note at the bottom of the page. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For your consideration, here is a paragraph, from ALEC, that needs improvement:
ALEC also has ties to the State Policy Network (SPN), a national association of conservative and libertarian think-tanks. SPN is a member of ALEC. [63] SPN members are encouraged to join ALEC.[64] The SPN regularly sponsors annual meetings for ALEC, and a number of SPN's active affiliates are members of both organizations. Some of the think tanks in the SPN write model legislation, which then is introduced at ALEC's private meetings.[65] The Guardian described ALEC as "SPN's sister organisation."[66]"
My beef? This is a series of random bits of information lacking prose. (And is the Guardian commentary helpful?) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, these tags are meaningless for us at present because the article has attention and on-going improvements. In the normal course of Wikipedia improvement such tags get indexed so that interested editors, e.g., WP:GNOMES, can find them in the WP:BACKLOG and work on them. Please, let's do the backlog Gnomes a favor and remove the tags. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, on the ALEC talk page you added your signature after the first paragraph and at the end of each numbered list item. While the time stamps (16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)) are all the same, the different signatures suggest that the numbers or items were added at different times. Also, at 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) you signed two of the three numbered items and the last last paragraph. Without looking closely, these multiple signatures can be confusing to the reader. I recommend signing once, at the end. When you create a numbered or bulleted list, please just add the signature after the list. It will look like this:
Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're not happy with my block of this most recent (I think it's the most recent, although there could already be two or three others) incarnation of the "Michigan Kid", bring it up at WP:ANI. WP:SPI is inappropriate for discussing IP blocks where there is no parent. I'm going to hat the discussion on the IP's talk page, as being an inappropriate venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
HughD, I've seen you removing citations when revising various lead sections. Please look at WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, I'm happy to note that you thank me for my edits. And I'm sure that you actually appreciate all (almost) of my edits. With this in mind there is no need to thank me so much. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are noted and appreciated as well. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Donors Capital Fund. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. With this edit [2] you are injecting your own personal view that DCF and DT are similar ("Like Donors Trust..."). Jeez! – S. Rich ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, I request that you read a couple of essays if you haven't already, those on citation overkill and bombardment. Comments such as this one (" add additional notable, neutral, verifiable reliable source for notability") suggest that you're adding sources not for verifiability, but for notability, which leads to a cluttered and weaker article (as explained in those essays). If someone is claiming that something should be excluded on notability/noteworthiness/balance grounds and you have sources you believe rebut those arguments, then please present the redundant sources at article talk rather than adding them to the article itself. Thanks. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to say this, but you seem unable to comprehend your obvious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so
Your recent editing history at Center for Media and Democracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have never taken an article to GA. While I didn't create the article, I have worked on it a lot. Have you taken an article to GA? Any suggestions? Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Glad I could help. To be honest, I am still a novice, as you can probably tell from my user page. I see you've been editing on WP for quite some time. I primarily work on Gun show loophole and will probably continue to do so until it gets GA status. LB and I are sort of co-founders on that one. Kind of a tough subject for a rookie, but "gun politics" is what got me started here in the first place. It can be a lot of drama too, sometimes (Have you seen how long the GSL talk page is?). Anyway, I think we are close to our (GA) goal over there and I'm kind of prospecting some new articles to work on, and it's nice to meet other editors with the same interests. I don't know how much experience you have working on these types of articles, but I can see that you've already stepped into some 3RR issues. Debating over sources is sometimes best left to RSN when you are "outnumbered" on a particular topic. I can tell you from my limited experience that it's much easier if you have someone knowledgeable, that you trust, by your side, to help you avoid the BAIT and keep things CIVIL. So, I'm here if you need to talk or vent, just remember that even though there's no such thing as privacy around here, honesty certainly helps us to deal with stress and avoid hitting the save button a little too soon. Cheers! Darknipples ( talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Stay sharp Darknipples ( talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Hugh, as you may know, under the 2013 revisions to DS the alert template I posted in the prior thread is a "no fault" FYI type of template. Hopefully, at this user talk page thread you can acknowledge that many people identify the IP as a case of WP:Long term abuse and that many people would like to find a solution. If you think a better solution needs to be found, please express the sentiments without running others down. If you'd accept a suggestion, please leave the sarcasm at home when making your points. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for analysis and reason at best, and at worst looks like personal attacks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
So file a complaint about admin abuse, but you'd better look out for boomerangs if you single AR out and ignore the others. I noticed you left out the part about Anna first trying to talk to the IP but ultimately in her concluding remarks saying "If all of this is to justify your strategy, don't bother. I cannot condone it. If you saying the path of getting unblocked is not something you will pursue, then we don't need to continue this."
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that you are trying, good luck. However, he used at least four different ips last night for his rapid fire, mostly trivial edits. Keep on truckin' :) Vsmith ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, you seem pretty up on Illinois politics and such, what's going to happen in the Chicago Mayor's race? Rahm going to be reelected? Capitalismojo ( talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hugh, At Global warming last year there was widespread agreement the entire article needs to be updated for IPCC AR5 (2014), and the lead especially needs an overhaul. Whether I did a good job or bad job, I at least sheparded the discussion through a review/tweaking of the hatnote and lead paragraph 1 (as minorly tweaked since Dec). If IP rehabilitation doesn't work out, would you be interested in channeling your energy toward updating that article ? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to American politician Hillary Clinton. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to her. The WikiProject Hillary Clinton group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. |
Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing this article Mathias 'Paddy' Bauler about a crooked Chicago alderman - want to help? There's been a lot written about him Victor Grigas ( talk) 02:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
I am vowing to follow the guideline at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. I hope I succeed. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say: I am not interested in going through and adding political conspiracy theories about George Soros across Wikipedia. It's not the kind of thing that gets me going, and in my opinion, it would be against the spirit of Wikipedia.
My point is that there should be some consistency across these pages that makes it more difficult for pages to violate NPOV. The fact is, most Wikipedia editors are liberal and male, so making the argument that 'I should be able to add bias to pages because the right-wing editors should be able to do the same thing' doesn't fly.
Is this a policy that has been considered before? If not, I would propose a loose top-three donor rule. It's a completely unbiased way to include donors onto a page without allowing biased editors to cherrypick politically convenient donors. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! :) This discussion is mostly about donations to non-profits, many of which have thousands of donors. My concern is that someone might (or rather, has been) cherrypicking politically convenient donors who may be relatively small donors. I'm interested in coming up with a loosely-defined policy that makes bias more difficult to insert into political pages.
I have not for quite some time (until about 3 days ago) edited pages related to U.S. politics. It's not something I have kept interest in. But I am interested in preserving the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia, so when I see systematic inclusion of bias into only one particular type of page, it concerns me.
It seems to me that a fair, politically-unbiased solution would be to have the top-three donors on each page, rather than giving a potentially politically-motivated editor full discretion to cherrypick whichever donors he wants. And I can't speak as to whether conservatives are proud to bag a donation from the Kochs. I don't know enough about the subject.
True, I think a noticeboard would be more appropriate. DaltonCastle ( talk) 17:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hugh. Re this edit, you've reverted me and others before to restore unnecessary sources "for noteworthiness." As a general matter it's not typical to add sources to establish that a fact is noteworthy. If there's a dispute about the relative importance of the content it can be discussed on the article talk page without cluttering up the article itself. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note, why are you reverting me to re-add a FreedomWorks press release? I understand your policy-based argument, but why would you want that? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Editor laudabilis | |
Thanks for keeping us all posted with your explanatory Edit notes on the Americans for Prosperity project! BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm just wondering why my edits on Americans for Prosperity are continuing to be reverted by you. I'm solely working on improving the article's neutrality by reducing bias. I understand that, from your perspective, "Koch funding is the aspect of the subject of this article," but I believe that you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to this subject. It's completely possible to give equal weight to both sides of the subject, and according to Wikipedia policy that is how each article and their subjects should be represented. Hope we can work this out... Cheers! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hugh, Just a quick note. You can just say "add ref" in edit summaries. We all assume that any ref added by you (or other veteran editors) will be noteworthy and reliable by definition. If people disagree that it is "noteworthy and reliable" the edit summary won't disuade them from disagreeing and even when it is obviously RS the summary comes off as a little ...I don't know... "Noteworthy ref for noteworthiness" seems a bit redundant. Anyway, I wanted to share my thoughts. Have a great weekend. Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hugh please, please don't insert material at a later time between two previous comments. I find that it is generally disruptive and can throw off the meaning of the thread. If you find it neccesary to insert later material between two edits (and it can be necessary occasionally), it is best to indicate that you have inserted it by starting the addition with (insert) or (inserted). Also if someone has replied to a comment, it is better to continue below the additional material and not insert material above the latest edit. This also can throw off the discussion a great deal. This may seem like just a little small thing but it would be a help. Thanks for your consideration. Capitalismojo ( talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Because you are now a moving target, I suggest limiting yourself to WP:1RR per article (or ideally, per day). That way, you can avoid allegations of edit warring. Viriditas ( talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The article Bernard Stone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bernard Stone for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
HughD, your easy disposition and even responses from inside the hornet's nest are certainly a model for others. I will remember this stellar conduct when tempted otherwise in the future. - Darouet ( talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you, but I am not worthy. Hugh ( talk) 17:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [ [3]] Springee ( talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, upon reviewing the second ANI discussion, the first ANI discussion, Talk:Americans for Prosperity and the now arguments over the closing attempts at the RFC, I am now imposing a two-week topic ban against you on anything related to Americans for Prosperity. This including any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever. Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks, which will have zero overall affect in the campaign season long-term, will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space. I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope (Fred Koch and whatever else are not included) as I'm presuming that you have enough sense not to try to argue the same things in other ways and you can conduct yourself on other articles without the same attitude and arguments. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bernard Stone at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Bernard Stone, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You have reached the point of edit warring with multiple editors. Please discuss rather than reinserting. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:ACDS applies to The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks, both WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. I strongly recommend you review the ArbCom findings. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Having failed consensus at one article, it is hardly a good idea to then try to insert that same material across a dozen other articles. Please cease. Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD, as a reminder, about the prior topic ban, I stated "I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope". Instead, you chose to represent this as "a recommendation to step back" from said article which you stated as part of another Arbitration Enforcement Request against another editor (something which I do not find remotely amusing or cute). Misleading others by pretending that you were in some way, shape or form stepping back from the dispute, so that you look better as part of this enforcement tit-for-tat game is not appropriate.
Furthermore, the fact that you would welcome a user with the username User:Kochtruth and encourage this behavior without a second thought is enough. I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Now you care about your conduct at AE. What more is there with Kochtruth beyond "hey, you picked a name that will cause an argument here, go pick something else and then you're free to go into that topic area and do the same thing and face the sanctions that everyone else gets from someone else"? "Good" new editors don't just wake up one day, pick names that are that partisan, create sandboxes of court filings, Senate reports and regulatory ruling and then dump that into hotbed articles and get into arguments about it. A "good" editor actually wants a useful encyclopedia so that a child in the third world or some rural town USA without access to a local library or without buying an encyclopedia can learn about ancient history or their favorite fictional character or write an report for school or about the US president in a neutral, factually fair way by people who are seemingly adult reviewing and discussing issues because they just want information known for everyone else.
You do realize that sanctions can escalate to include outright blocks and bans, right? You realize that there is a very, very broad set of discretionary sanctions against all post-1932 US politics articles? People hate this behavior that much over this broad a spectrum. When I say "those" kinds of articles, I mean those broad, broad, broad range of articles. I've given you mountains of leeway here. Please do not act like I'm blind. I didn't care about the delay, I had zero involvement in the manner, I've probably never dealt with Arthur Rubin, I don't know if I ever even read the Americans for Prosperity page, I didn't even care that you filed a report on the same article since the ban was over. The point was, you chose to lie about why your nonsense stopped when asked about the delay (it was the sole article I topic banned you from, I think it's mighty relevant) and if you want to play dumb, fine but none of the admins even caught on (including one who was the last person you were badgering when the topic ban was imposed) nor should they particularly have because no one should have to look up all this crap just to check on you. I'm presuming that you just have a blind spot on this topic because you edit elsewhere and I haven't checked into it. But everyone here is a volunteer and if you simply think that your work is so righteous that you're justified in lying or misleading or just lazy with words or just wasting god know how many people's time just to win an inch by inch battle in this stupidity, think again, you're not. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is unjustified. No evidence of topic ban violation. No edits in same topic as topic ban. Block did not include my sandbox. Blocking editor is mistaken: block is Tea Party movement, not American politics. Block is over-the-top harassment; an emotional reaction to finding notes for a draft DS appeal in my sandbox. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Please do not accuse me of an emotional reaction to your draft appeal. Again, my major concern was the draft contents but those weren't new. The Citizens United article itself may or may not be in the scope of the topic but there's no indication of any ARBCOM sanctions about it on the talk page so I've learnt towards an unblock with an apology about misunderstanding what the drafting contents were coming from. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
HughD your explanation about the sandbox seems reasonable. It does seem as though you were just making room, the copy and paste nature of the move made it less than clear that it was old content. I have posted a message to Ricky81682 asking for clarification about the other edits of concern. I want to discuss the matter with him prior to doing anything. It appears he is asleep right now but do not worry I will not forget about you. Chillum 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Our article Citizens United v. FEC is not within scope of WP:ARBTPM, no matter how broadly construed, unless perhaps the construer is in a deeply frustrated state of mind. Our article Citizens United v. FEC makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Our article Tea Party movement makes no mention of Citizens United v. FEC. Our article Citizens United v. FEC is about a Supreme Court of the United States decision, not about a tea party group; but, in fact, our article Citizens United makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs and our article Tea Party movement makes no mention of Citizens United. My recent contribution to our article Citizens United v. FEC was in good faith, constructive, neutral, verifiable, well-referenced, and makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs; please see diff. There was no violation of the topic ban. Hugh ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User:HughD/donorstrust makes no mention of the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Hugh ( talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've unblocked HughD. I think there are enough direct articles on the topic that a block for an indirect connection is not needed at the moment. My apologies though for the complete misunderstanding of what you were doing with the draft content: it's unusual for me to see anyone draft bits and pieces of content in sandboxes so I thought it was just a new article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
On 30 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bernard Stone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 38-year tenure of Bernard "Berny" Stone as Alderman from the 50th Ward in the Chicago City Council spanned seven Chicago Mayors, including two Mayors Daley? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Stone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago-style politics (meme) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Springee ( talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
HughD, I see you are reverting edits of mine. I would ask that you respect the voluntary interaction band that we discussed in the ANI. Here you are reverting edits that two editors (myself as one) have said should not be reverted [ [18]]. There is are current discussions regarding the use of the MJ article you are adding back to articles. [ [19]],[ [20]],[ [21]]. The discussions are here [22] and [23]. My read on the consensus is that the article can only be used in limited ways. Springee ( talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you're currently banned from editing "all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." You've recently been editing on Institute for Energy Research, which is in the Koch orbit, according to the article: "Both IER and the American Energy Alliance are partly funded by the Koch Brothers and their donor network, according to Politico's research, sources - and to reports by Koch-controlled charitable foundations themselves." Isn't it a violation of your topic ban to edit this article? Safehaven86 ( talk) 18:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
HughD, your recent edits here are on a page that you previously linked with the Koch brothers and the Donor's Trust. [27] I believe this is a violation of your edit ban. {{ Safehaven86's recent ARE related to your violations [28] was concluded by Callanecc with the following warning, "I'm going to AGF here and warn rather than block, but any further violations are very likely to result in a block." It does not appear that you are taking that warning seriously. Springee ( talk) 13:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I've filed a request concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Safehaven86 ( talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to an AE request filed against you I am warning you to pay more attention to the terms of your ban from the Tea Party movement to ensure that you do not breach it. If you breach your topic ban again, even if just minor, it is very likely you will be blocked. As this is a sanction you may appeal it per the instructions here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Please remove my quote from your home page. Springee ( talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would make more sense to create a separate article about the Searle Freedom Trust. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits on [32] violate the 3RR rule. Please correct this oversight. Springee ( talk) 01:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Springee ( talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Watchdog.org, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transparency. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm blocking you for one week for deliberate violation of your topic ban on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity with this edit and more. As I shouldn't have to remind you, your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general. You were already warned once before about violating the ban including statements that you would self-revert but it seems that more stringent sanctions are warranted. Again, the topic ban is related to Tea party politics broadly so stop arguing technicalities about whether the word "Kochs" are in the article. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The ban is more broad than just the Koch brothers. It is against all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly. That said, I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity or Sam Adams Alliance. The closest is that the Sam Adams Alliance founder Eric O'Keefe (political activist) is a board member for Citizens for Self-Governance founded by Mark Meckler who founded Tea Party Patriots but that's just paranoia at that point. There should be leeway to edit there unless there's evidence that it's becoming a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block under an unfortunate mis-impression that Donors Trust is directly related to the Tea Party movement. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC) In discussion, block justification switched to Kochs. Block under an unfortunate mis-impression that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is related to the Koch. Blocking admin specifically ruled Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out-of-scope of topic ban prior to edits "no issue". Blocking admin extended topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust without notice. No violation of topic ban as per WP:TBAN. In discussion, block justification switched to ownership behavior, socking, and role account. No ownership, socking, or role account. Block is not necessary to prevent disruption. Request community discussion at arbitration enforcement as per WP:AEBLOCK. Appeal template below. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This is an arbitration enforcement block and has to be appealed as is going on below. No administrator can overturn this block until there is a successful appeal. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
No "deliberate violation" of topic ban. Topic ban is under WP:ARBTPM. Scope of topic ban is "...any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers..."
The block notice and discretionary sanctions log entry cited an edit to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban. No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Evidence that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban includes, most strongly, an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking admin that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban User talk:Ricky81682#Question on scope of ban: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity...There should be leeway to edit there..." Additionally, Wikipedia article space, edit history 18:35, 10 July 2013, 17:13 6 March 2015. and talk page discussion clearly demonstrates community consensus that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not related to the Kochs.
The block notice stated reason is "...adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs..." Article Donors Trust was not edited. Donors Trust is not directly related to the Tea Party movement. Koch family foundations have contributed to Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund, the whole point of which is that no relationship may be inferred between a specific grantor and a specific grantee. The banning/blocking admin extended the topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust, without consensus and without notice and without logging, and then blocked retroactively for violation of the extended topic ban.
In discussion of the block subsequent to the block notice, the banning/blocking admin advanced various alternative justifications for the block, including suspected use of a role account, socking, and ownership behavior, which charges can be address upon request if necessary.
Respectfully request please unblock. I am appealing this block in order to clear my name and to return to making valuable contributions to our project. The block is not necessary to prevent disruption. Thank you.
Mmm, I'm not prepared to decline this request myself, but it seems that even though the article doesn't say anything about its relationship with TPM, Franklin Center is acting in the same area of taxes and their spending with is the pet peeve of tea partyers. Thus, it falls under the typical wording of topic bans, which say "related to [...], broadly construed".
Max Semenik (
talk) 06:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
Thoughts? Hugh ( talk) 14:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
First, stop saying "Our". I'm presuming you aren't actually an inappropriate WP:ROLE account. Otherwise you're expressing serious WP:OWN issues. Second, I remind you that your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Third, I'd say you're being ridiculously disingenuous about this and have responded on your talk page with a one-week block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not respond to your charge of role account, since you couched it in "presumably you aren't" and because frankly it seemed so far fetched to me I did not take it seriously. Do you think I am a reincarnation of User:Kochtruth? Are you now adding role account or socking to your evolving block notice? Are you adding the word "our" to your ban? May I note that in your post above from your talk page you clearly state that the block was for editing related to the TPM, not the Kochs, as you did in your block notice above on this page. May I respectfully ask, were you angry when you wrote this? It reads kind of angry to me. I did not take this comment on your talk page too too seriously because frankly it read like you were angry, and the "ridiculously disingenuous" comment made me think you were angry because you thought I was gaming you. I can understand why you might have thought I was gaming you, but I was not. If you were angry, that's ok, I can accept that, admins are human, too.
I don't think you are being fair to me. You told me an article was out of scope, I edited it, you changed your mind, and then you blocked me. You thought Donors Trust was a Tea Party movement player. That's ok, admins are human, no one can master every topic area in WP. Although I fully understand it is not an excuse and is not determinative in this context, I respectfully ask for consideration of the fact that the three edits of mine with which you have expressed concern in the discussion of this block have all stuck, they are all improvements to our project. I think it is best at this point for you to unblock. It is only a few days now but it would mean a lot to me going forward if you would unblock. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You mistakenly told me Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope. You mistakenly believed Donors Trust was a Tea Party movement player. You mistakenly thought I was gaming your topic ban. I was not. I do not think you were trying to entrap me. But your reluctance to acknowledge your own role, and the role of human error, in these events, and unblock, has me considering non-AGF thoughts. Please unblock. Although it is only a few days now, it would mean a lot to me if I were unblocked, and if you were the one to unblock; it would mean a lot to me in terms of our relationship, you and me, and my relationship to our project. Thank you for your reconsideration. Hugh ( talk) 14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You wrote: "this shouldn't be a game where HughD asks me to examine article after article and I have to solve the tenuous connections that may or may not be there when HughD knows full well that they exist and even makes it my fault that I missed the connection so HughD should be allowed to edit freely on the topic." You are right, I understand the domain better than you, no reflection on you, but you should listen to me. You know who else knows the domain better than you? Champaign Supernova. And I fully accept that I am primarily responsible for understanding "Koch broadly construed." Although your original block notice was not based on the Kochs, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity connection to the Kochs is apparently very obvious and very important to you, so please allow me to provide some background.
A money trail donor -> Donors Trust -> org is extraordinary difficult to document, which is the whole point of Donors Trust after all. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund; contributors to Donors Trust describe/specify/recommend the ultimate grantee. Funds generally must disclose their transfers to other funds such as Donors Trust, and Donors Trust must disclose their grantees, but only very, very occasionally can we reliably state that a given donor contributed to a given org via Donors Trust. See Searle Freedom Trust for an exception that proves the rule. As required by law, Searle disclosed that they contributed to Donors Trust, but also chose to disclose that their contribution was earmarked to fund a court challenge to affirmative action, and a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source wrote about it, and we included it in our project. We have no reliable sources that speak to a Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity connection to the Kochs. It is counter-factual and completely unreasonable for you to extend your Koch topic ban to "second level links" to all organizations funded by Donors Trust.
And by the way Champaign Supernova and Arthur Rubin are involved editors at Donors Trust and know this "full well." I am not the one taking advantage of a completely understandable short fall in fully comprehending the complexities of this domain. When they want to enforce a topic ban, the Kochtopus is suddenly legion. Hugh ( talk) 18:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The appeal is declined. Your options for further review are explained at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for working on the article. It is not neutral for the article to start off with a cite to a Politico article that is baldly critical of ThinkProgress. Other than ThinkProgress's own description of itself (which we previously cited to under WP:SPS), can you find a WP:RS that would be a better cite to use in the opening paragraph? All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
HughD, as I stated at User_talk:Callanecc#Question_on_arbitration_enforcement, Watchdog.org violates your topic ban and your editing is a violation of the topic ban. You are banned from any activity about the topic, not from making particular edits with certain words. The discussion at Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent_assessments_of_partisanship shows that you know full well that certain sources about Watchdog.org already do and are going to involve the Koch brothers and rather than stay away from the page entirely, you're trying to create a patchwork of editing so that you are never in the most technical of violations of the ban. This is a waste of everyone's time to police. However, rather than going to a two-week block, my sanction is going to be to redefine and expand the topic ban to hopefully make it more clear what articles are and which are not a violation of the ban. As such, you are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016. I'm not resetting the time period for what that's worth and in case it isn't abundantly clear this topic ban does include Watchdog.com so any further editing is a violation of that ban. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Do not delete my talk page comments. If you wish to move them ask me. I see no policy that says relevant, recent noticeboard discussions can not be added to the header so long as it is done in a neutral fashion. Do not accuse other editors of trying to be disruptive. That is not assuming good faith. Springee ( talk) 06:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
HughD, your recent edits to Exxon Mobile are a 3RR violation. Please self revert and move your views to the talk page. I apologies for violating you talk page ban to deliver this request. Springee ( talk) 12:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Again, this does not accuse you of any impropriety; I just want to make sure you aren't caught unawares. There are so many of these discretionary sanctions floating around that it can be hard to keep up. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Per this closure at AE. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Hugh ( talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)|decline=Procedurally closing this request, since it's been copied to WP:AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)}}
Appeal copied to WP:AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by HughDNo violation of topic ban. No disruptive behavior. Good faith edits. Harassment by complainant. Misrepresentations by involved editors in statements in request for enforcement. No consensus for closure of harassing request for enforcement. No consensus for block. Lack of proportionality. Block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to our project. Repeated offer to apologize and strike through ignored. Respectfully request unblock. Thank you. Statement by EdJohnstonStatement by Arthur RubinAs should be obvious, there is little accurate in Hugh's statement. To note one of the more obvious errors, he says he "offered to strike" a violation. He had plenty of opportunity to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughDIt appears to me that the ban is an attempt by certain editors, who disagree with HughD, to silence him. I have looked for evidence of wrongdoing by HughD but I can't find any. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by HughD
|
The above appeal has been closed but there is no result. What does this mean? Biscuittin ( talk) 17:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is HughD continually being banned? I've been looking at his edits and I can't find anything the least bit controversial. His editing is so neutral that I don't know whether he is left or right or whether he is pro-green or anti-green. What is going on here? Biscuittin ( talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm also wondering the same thing as Biscuittin. Why some people get blocked and banned so often when other people seem to be the ones who are uncivil and mean and violating policy. SageRad ( talk) 06:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:ExxonMobil, including in sections Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general, Neutrality, and Change in article project quality without discussion. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at User talk:SageRad, including your 8 January 2016 alert for WP:ARBCC and in section In which an editor with a strong POV about the fossil fuel industry makes accusations toward me. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Ping editor @ SageRad: Hugh ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:Climate change denial, including in sections Do changes in the consensus over time create deniers?, relation to climate adaptation, Title, and Scientific opinion vs. the opinion of some scientists. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comments at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, including in sections Academics paid for their work product ( 9 December 2015) and Tom Quirk ( 20:03 7 January 2016, 20:04 7 January 2016, 23:34 7 January 2016, and 8 January 2016). Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comment of 7 January 2016 in reply to a thread started by @ Biscuittin: at Talk:Global cooling in section Definition of Global cooling. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I have alreadly taken this blanket action on ALL my comments since my voluntary Tban began. Feel free to add your remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Please self-revert or strike-through your topic ban violating comment of 6 November 2015 at Talk:Global warming controversy#Primarily. Thank you in advance. Hugh ( talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI please add any additional remarks to the AE filing against myself. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
HughD, we met in the Koch suite of articles. I just saw this AE and my heart sank. I am so sorry !!! what a loss! You are one of the most patient and civil, firmly quality rooted editors in the political arena that I have encountered. I am f... aghast ! It's awful, this sectarian partisan, reactionary BS going on on WP. (if it's of any relief to you: I was TB'ed from GMO and agricultural chemicals like Sage Rad for editing on pesticides and bringing a terribly uncivil editor to justice- I never did anything on the so called GMO pages).-- Wuerzele ( talk) 00:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are banned from my talk page, and have been repeatedly reminded. Hugh ( talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are banned from my talk page. Hugh ( talk) 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hugh, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, -- Gnom ( talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
You were let off with a warning by Callanecc in October 2015 for violating your conservative U.S. politics/Koch topic ban, in part by editing Institute for Energy Research. In the arbitration enforcement, you wrote: "Sorry about this. My mistakes. I understand the ban. I am not trying to circumvent it. I will try to be more careful. Avoiding the Kochs is hard sometimes." Yet today, I notice you've again edited Institute for Energy Research, an article which contains substantial information on conservative U.S. politics and the Kochs. It appears that you're either willfully ignoring the ban, or lack the competence to avoid editing in areas where you're restricted. I will give you a chance to self-revert your recent topic ban violations, but if you don't, I'll have to file a WP:AE request against you, and I will seek stronger remedies than a topic ban, because unfortunately your numerous instances over many months of violating the ban show the community you're not apparently capable of complying with one. Safehaven86 ( talk) 20:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you renamed Category:ExxonMobil controversies to Category:ExxonMobil history. As a potentially controversial move, it should not to be done without discussion. Also, there is is a special procedure for deleting, merging or renaming categories which should be followed. Therefore I would request you to undue your unilateral renaming and to start the proper procedure according to the WP:CFD. Beagel ( talk) 16:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article, until Jan 1, 2017.
You have been sanctioned Due to ongoing editing on fringes of conservative US politics.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.
Zad
68
14:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Note--The AE request concerning you is now closed, with the modifications to the scope and length of the ban as per above. Please do not add anything else to the closed AE request. Appeal information was supplied above. Thanks...
Zad
68
10:41 am, Today (UTC−4)
Notice of ARE related to your edits [34]
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
In addition:
If you should continue violating your topic ban (whether you agree you violated it or not), future sanctions will grow increasingly severe very swiftly. I would strongly encourage you to contact an uninvolved administrator before editing in any potential grey area again, but it is ultimately up to you to follow the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Request unblock from WP:AE and WP:ARC in order to participate in discussion of currently open appeal, or an unblock with a voluntary block from article space and article talk. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
HughD ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. Hugh ( talk) 14:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is still no appeal to be copied over. Please do not make the same request again without at least an appeal to copy over. SQL Query me! 03:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global Climate Coalition you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Global Climate Coalition you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Global Climate Coalition for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just curious about any harassment you've seen on wikipedia. Maybe it's sexism, racism, science denial, etc. Would love to hear from someone that is topic banned from so many important sections of this site which shows up as #1 on google searches by claiming to be unbiased and accurate. POC2016 ( talk) 21:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Global Climate Coalition you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Global Climate Coalition for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera ( talk) 21:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 04:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, HughD. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you.
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HughD
I have blocked you indefinitely as you have been using 35.164.239.14 ( talk · contribs) to avoid your topic ban. -- Yamla ( talk) 18:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the above block HughD has used additional IP addresses (also blocked) [ [35]], [ [36]], [ [37]]
A history of the IP addresses HughD has used can be seen both in the SPI logs as well as here [ [38]], here [ [39]] and here [ [40]]. Springee ( talk) 01:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This user has continued to engage in block evasion as of July, 2017. As such, s/he would not be eligible under WP:SO until 2018 at the earliest. -- Yamla ( talk) 12:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This user has engaged in block evasion in September, 2017. -- Yamla ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
A sock puppet investigation that involves this account has been filed here: [ [41]] Springee ( talk) 18:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
See this. -- NeilN talk to me 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet. Thank you. User:Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)