User talk:HughD: Difference between revisions

Politics

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)

49TH

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)

Exact neighborhood boundaries are somewhat controversial, but the City has an official community areas map, and the map even has a WP article Neighborhoods of Chicago. By that definition, yes, Senn is in Edgewater. I would concur with your proposed edit. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Newsbank

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)

The correct "Ed Burke"?

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)

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink FAC

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)

Park Grill GAC

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)

Thanks for the first attempt at the GAC. The Millennium Park topic has two and a half months to get the article up to GA standards, so I encourage you to address the concerns and resubmit it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is ready to resubmit. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bean on the roof!

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)

Chicago Meetup and update

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)

You are one of the people I had hope to see at the meetup. Why haven't you signed up?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much looking forward to meeting you. I won't know my schedule until 5/1 is closer. Hugh (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill renomination

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)

I have gotten a response and understand what is going on. Keep up the good work, but keep WP:UNDUE in mind when deciding how much space to allocate to the scandal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"how much space to allocate to the scandal" Some would prefer none. The article conforms to WP:DUE: "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." At this point further deletion of detail will cascade; for example, if we try to summarize as "investors included friends and neighbors of Daley" and leave it at that w/o detail, an editor will flag it as a NPOV violation or OR. The level of detail was dictated by NPOV and OR flagging. Hugh (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, good luck with a renomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks, but what do you think, is it ready? Hugh (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Get some feedback at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened up Wikipedia:Peer review/Park Grill/archive1. Watch there for suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have some comments to work on at the WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I forgot to watch it Hugh (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it coming along?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to take the latest advice of the PR reviewer and then renominate the article at WP:GAC. Note that Millennium Park's WP:FT will be demoted on June 13 if this does not make GA in time for us to have this added to the topic. We need about 10-14 days to add it to the topic, so you need to get this through GA by the end of the month. Let me know when you nominate it at GAC so I can help get it a quick review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am getting quite stressed about this. If you have not come back to addresss the PR commentary by the time I finish expanding Juwan Howard, I will try to do so myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill GA

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)

well, you're welcome, but I didn't start it (or finish it) but I'm happy how it turned out and I learned a lot Hugh (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gery Chico Wiki Page

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

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)

GA Thanks

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)

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

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)

Rogers park

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)

GA nom for Richard Daley

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)

Ok. Thank you for being gracious. I will review the article sometime today. PrairieKid (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I finished my review. I thought the article was very close to meeting the criteria, but had some grammar issues, and an issue with the focus. I put it on hold for one week to get those figured out. You can find my review here. Thanks for your contributions! Let me know if you have any questions, or are ready for me to finish my review. PrairieKid (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It passed! Thank you for all the work done to the article. I feel it now meets the GA criteria, ahead of schedule! Please continue to maintain the page to keep it at a GA level. Thank you! PrairieKid (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago Barnstar

		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)

GA Thanks

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)

Chicago article

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)

Thanks for reaching out. I'm embarrassed this article is not good. I would like to help. I've been busy. I will do what I can. I appreciate you articulating in a to-do list that referencing is a priority, and, looking over the article, I think that is still the case - whole sections w/o refs. I think the monuments section is reasonably complete in the sense that these are the most notable. I would eliminate the list, format it more like the public art paragraph in the arts section later, that is, a sentence each that names the subject and artist and some aspect of notability. Wl the monument to its article or failing that its subject. Maybe merge the monuments section with the public art section or vice versa. Add Michael Jordan's Winged Victory, US Grant, Taft's Fountain of Time in Washington Park. Hugh (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Helen Shiller

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)

Barnstar

		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)

GA Thanks

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)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Berrios

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)

Your review of Davis Theater

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)

November 2013 GA Thanks

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)

Abby Washburn's bday

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)

An ale for you!

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)

It happens. It seems that it's always either just one or two and a quarter of a page or 10 and an encyclopedia in itself. Go figure. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC) PS: And if it might make you feel any better I made a Really Important Suggestion over at BLP a week or so ago that got even less discussion than yours. So it goes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

George Cardenas

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)

Harold Washington

Thanx for the catch.Naraht (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement page sources

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)

Beating our chests

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)

"Expand section" tags

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)

We need more editors. Hugh (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a balance between article appearance and improvement vs. attracting more editors. As the tags have been in place for so long they are of little usefulness. (E.g., they have not attracted more editors.) Please accept my advice as one of those gnomes who occasionally works on the backlogs. – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's remove a section tag when we finish a section. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree these tags are of limited value when the article is in active development, but I have no problem with them. The sections get expanded and the tags get deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation re signatures

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:

1. One.
2. Two.

Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please seek permission from me before editing my talk page contributions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You edited a fellow editor's talk and posted a formatting lesson on an experienced editor's talk page, after the editor warned you that he felt you were harassing him. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't think I edited any of your comments on any talk page. If I did, it was certainly inadvertent. And who was that other editor? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

sure you are Hugh (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Although you are clearly often being (probably unintentionally) disruptive, that particular technique seems appropriate for that comment, if you want comments to each entry of a numbered list. But, although you appear to have a number of edits, those edits do not indicate that you are "experienced" in following Wikipedia guidelines. (In other words, WP:TROUTS for all.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Michigan kid

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)

I doubt you'll find support, from other than those who think that the IP's global warming edits outweigh the clearly inappropriate edits and the fact that he's blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I believe the only way to overcome WP:BE is to appeal the original block. And in a case like this Michigan Kid would also have to overcome the years of disruptive behavior since his block. Highly, highly unlikely. --DrFleischman (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This link will help you understand how this began. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What does it have to do with anything? Hugh (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the same person whose recent block you're objecting to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. May I ask, how do you know that? Is there a SPi or check user I could review? Where is the consensus that they are the same person? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, what is your understanding of policy and guideline with respect to section blanking on talk pages other than your own? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Blanking of inappropriate sections of talk pages is a "best practice", as is blanking of welcome messages to already-banned editors, and blanking of warnings to banned editors who are unlikely to return. But I probably should have moved the inappropriate discussion of the banned IP's block from his page to yours. If you want to complain about that at WP:ANI, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have reviewed WP:TPO and fail to find the justifications you cite. I am unfamiliar with these best practices of section blanking on others' talk pages. Can you please direct me to where I can learn more about best practices in section blanking others' talk pages? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"If you want to complain about that at WP:ANI, go ahead." Are you saying there is no documentation on these best practices you mention? Are you saying you can do whatever and if I don't like it, I can go to ANI? If so I have not heard this attitude from an admin. I thought admins were supposed to be held to a higher standard, not lower. Above you said I had a lot to learn about how WP works, is this one of those lessons? Hugh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, you're going to have to do your own research on much of this. I'm not inclined to do much heavy lifting to answer your questions, and I doubt that Arthur is either. I will say, however, that addressing block evasion is something that's done largely off the radar. To some extent it's a matter of efficiency, and to some extent it's done that way intentionally so as not to show all the cards to the block evaders. I will say that if you do a little digging you'll see that Arthur and his crew have had a lot of eyes on them the last few years and I'm not aware of any mistakes, nor of any challenge that has made any headway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"off the radar" And without consensus. Process matters. Hugh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All admin actions require consensus? You are mistaken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Arthur and his crew" This editor was declared a sock and blocked by the unilateral action of one editor. Hugh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur isn't the only one policing the Michigan guy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ONE editor, in one edit, declared a user a sock and blocked. No concensus. Maybe I should be grateful for this peak behind th ecurtain at how WP really works. SPI is for the unwashed masses. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"do your own research" Can you please direct me to policy and guidelines under which one editor can declare another editor a sock and block them? Thank you in advance for sharing from your vast experience with WP. Hugh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to change the way the community addresses block evasion then I suggest you start a discussion at WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of cites from lead sections

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)

The lede summarizes the body. There should be no information in the lede that is not already in the body in more detail, and the body is where the refs go. There should be no controversial statements in the lede, so they should not require refs. The lede should represent consensus. Refs in the lede is a frequent issue in GA reviews, because it represents lazy editing. Build your case in the body and summarize it in the lede. If you have a statement in a lede that you think needs a ref, it's a sign your body needs work. Hugh (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly agree, While I have not checked as to the removal of particular citations in the lede, I hope you will consider whether removal of citations from the lede is is warranted. – S. Rich (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A ref in the lede flags content that should be moved to the body, along with the ref, and replaced in the lede by a brief summary. Hugh (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

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)

The article is coming along. Thanks for fixing, like the spn link, instead of deleting. Hugh (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I encourage your efforts. But take a look at this edit. Where did you get "exclusively"? Is this your view on what DCT does? If this view is not not supported by RS, then you, as a Wikipedian, must leave it out. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"X focuses on Y" is not obviously incorrect, it is too loose, it admits of a reading, X does Y, mostly, but maybe some not Y. That is not the case here. Their own website is very forthright: when you invest with us, yo uare investing in Y. Exclusively. Forever. Guaranteed. Hugh (talk) The simplest is DCF is a conservative donars advised fund. Hugh (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh is half wrong and half right. Of the policy-focused donations the group gives, they say on their website that they promise to only give to "liberty-minded" groups. However, not all of the group's donations are to policy groups. They report that 70-75% are, and the remainder are to traditional charities. [1] Therefore it's inaccurate to say the group gives exclusively to conservative/libertarian (or even generic policy) causes. According to the group, 25-30% of their gifts are in the non-policy realm, so they couldn't possibly be to conservative or libertarian groups. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

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)

Thank you for your kind suggestion to veteran fellow editor to read some essays. Classy! I would ask you for your patience with what may appear at first as overciting. As you are well aware, my contributions in this little backwater of WP are much more likely to be flagged as note noteworthy by the regulars. You are leading the charge on overcite. You also know me to be more than willing to trim refs once we get passed the noteworthiness, reliable source issues. So take a breath. Hugh (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"the analysis itself is not noteworthy without further description of findings or significance" as an edit summary, let me ask you: Before or during your deletion of another editor's contribution, including several important new reliable sources, did it cross your mind, however briefly, that this might be an edit in progress, especially, knowing as you do, that the contributor is an experienced editor, with a record of good articles, and this contribution was only a few hours old? Hugh (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please cut the snark. With retorts like this you obviously have little interest in working collaboratively with your fellow editors, you clearly miss the concept of citation overkill, and you seem to have a listening problem as well. I will stop making friendly suggestions. I will be looking for sources you add for noteworthiness purposes and will delete them on sight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. I asked you a question. it was not a rhetorical question. I would appreciate an answer. Even if it is "no." Surely you will agree that talk page dialog is an important part of collaboration, and editors may ask each other questions on talk pages. A fellow editor s trying to understand you better. Answer his question. Hugh (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not answering those types of questions anymore, sorry. You have filled your weekly quota for dumb, disruptive questions. Try again next week. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the name calling? It is a sincere question. Why can't you accept it as such? We have not collaborated extensively before. I would like to understand you better. I believe that understanding your thoughts as you performed this particular deletion might offer an avenue to mutual understanding. If you do not reply, all I really have to go on is your comment "you clearly miss the concept of citation overkill" above, from which I can only conclude, yes, you knew the contributor, you knew the contribution was not controversial, you knew the contribution included several important new reliable source references, well-formatted, you knew another editor might not agree with the deletion, but you deleted anyway, because you had your interpretation of WP:OVERCITE on your side. This realization makes me sad. Please reply and clarify your thinking on this. I really believe it may help going forward in establishing a basis for collaboration. Hugh (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll indulge you. "[D]id it cross your mind, however briefly, that this might be an edit in progress, especially, knowing as you do, that the contributor is an experienced editor, with a record of good articles, and this contribution was only a few hours old?" The answer is no. Where do I start on my explanation...

• I do not care if the edit is an "edit in progress" or was "only a few hours old." All edits are "edits in progress," whatever that means, and I've never refrained from reverting or commenting in the hope that the contributor might correct his or her own edit. If I wait too long to deal with the edit then it falls off my watchlist. So I find it better to respond to edits immediately.
• The edit was controversial, in the sense that it larded up the article with unnecessary sources, created citation clutter, and created the appearance of a battleground. (I've noticed a pattern, you call certain edits "not controversial" and then they get reverted, and then you fight over them. The fact that they were reverted and fought over is ex post facto evidence that they were in fact controversial. It would be more productive to drop the unhelpful and provocative "controversialness" of your edits from your edit summaries.)
• I do not bicker over the experience level of my fellow editors. I do not care about the experience level of my fellow editors, except the extent that (i) I try not to bite the newbies, and (ii) I have slightly less patience for stupid comments made by very experienced editors.

Someone of your experience level should have been able to anticipate all of these responses, which is demonstrative of why your fellow contributors have lost patience with you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think you know I meant, and I think you would agree, the content you deleted was not controversial, and I think you know what I intended by edit in progress. I agree you were within the rules in your delete. That's not what I'm asking about here. If I understand your reply correctly, I am saddened to learn that you had no thought of the contributing fellow editor, newbie or no, as you deleted a non-controversial contribution including several new important well-formatted reliable source references. So be it. Thanks for your answer. I understand you take a more lawyerly approach to your collaborations. I'm sorry you are not happy with my edit summaries. I wounder if you might consider that more detailed edit summaries might be an artifact of editing in an area of WP where many editors (not you) are quick to jump on the del key with not rs or not noteworthy or fails V etc. Thanks again for your dialog. I think it helps to keep talking instead of shutting down. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Another snarky comment. Good day to you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I meant no offense. I was trying to reply and to echo my understanding of your reply. I am trying to express myself as accurately as I can. Hugh (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good day to you, too! Thank you for your continuing dialog toward identifying areas of mutual understanding which may form the basis of future collaboration. Thank you for your suggestion of reading essays. I have been reviewing WP:ROWN. Are you familiar with it? It talks about our bias toward change, and maximizing participation. It mentions that reverts should not be used to teach an editor a lesson, but I note that in this case you reverted and then jumped on my talk page to suggest I read some essays. It mentions that reverts should not be used to remove content where part of the content improves the encyclopedia, and I note that in this case your deletion included several well-formatted new important reliable source references. I believe we are expected to be particularly careful with deletions that include references. It talks about not deleting content because you don't have time to fix it. May I ask, did you consder fixing it before you deleted a fellow editor's contribution of non-controversial content including several well-formatted new important reliable source references? It suggest discussing a deletion on a talk page first. Did you consider doing that? Your thoughts? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your suggestion of reading essays. It is a good thing from time to time to refresh our understanding of our expectations of our fellow editors. Why don't we read something together? Why don't we read WP:ROWN together and discuss it together here? Looking forward to hearing from you! Hugh (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning

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)

I only reverted twice in the past 15 hours; you reverted three times. Still, I'm not going to revert your obvious errors, in the hope that S.Rich will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope all is well. See the talk, I left you some notes on the NYT refs. Hugh (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The text is there; I don't know why I didn't see it before. It's still only one reference, no matter how many times the same words appear in NYT articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

309th MEB

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)

Sure! Happy to help. Some tips. Learn the GA criteria and read the article critically and copy edit. Read some GA reviews on military unit articles, reserve unit articles if you can find one, and see what reviewers ding for. There is no rule but I think most editors would say the best order is to nominate a few articles to GA before you review GA articles. The GA queues are long and topical so you should expect your reviewer would be familiar with similar topics. If you nominate now almost certainly you will have time to polish unless somebody for some reason picks your topic out of the queue. When you nominate you are committing to putting in some time on the article during a revision period, usually about a week. You can team up on the revisions, but not with the reviewer. You could ask for a peer review 1st or go for GA. Hugh (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Any time

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)

Thanks for the note and adult beverage. I'm excited to hear of your GA plan. That is ambitious. It is a hard topic. Respect. Hugh (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Stay sharp Darknipples (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Climate and sock puppetry

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)

By the way, we agree that the climate pages need help. Among the climate pages, the most-viewed article is Global warming. We revised the first paragraph of the lead last year, after 200000 bytes of discussion and multiple drafts (see archives, search for "NAEG ver" in archive 69-71 or so.) It was exhausting, but we need some new energy to keep on revising the outdated/bloated lead. Is that a place where you'd like to contribute to the climate pages? If so it would be welcome. From long experience there, the best approach is to post drafts to the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If this is all on the up & up, then even if there is no discussion on this particular block of this IP, there is a consensus documented as a discussion somewhere on the mandate for this "plan" I can review. I would like start by reviewing the basis for the "shoot on sight" aspect so I can disabuse myself of the notion that it is "fire, aim, ready." Can you help me with that? What is the basis in policy and guideline for the one man SPI/block? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you should ask the two admins other than Arthur whom I already linked in your thread at Arthur's page. Again they are Vsmith (talk · contribs) and JamesBWatson (talk · contribs). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I recognize those names, the IP also mentioned them. May I respectfully ask again, can you point me toward the basis of the "shoot on sight" approach in policy guideline or essay? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to LTA, I had not come across that before. Can you help me find the case on this IP? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no LTA case for this IP. There was some multi-editor discussion awhile back, but we decided that WP:Revert, block, ignore was better than giving additional recognition to the abuser via LTA notoriety. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No LTA. Huh. I see. A transparent process would have aided the Monster. Anna wrote to the monster, "Wikipedia is transparent." Do you agree? When you linked to LTA, where you hoping I would not look for this IP? Hugh (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary so far: No SPI. No checkuser. No LTA. No previous block of this IP. 13 edits in 1 hour, no vandalism. Yet a unilateral 1 year block of an IP and block of registrations. Hugh (talk) 18:30, 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)

Educate me. Please point me to the basis for unilateral fast-track SPI/block. Thanks. So far I am finding in essay WP:DBQ "If you are sure about a certain editor to be a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor, before shooting the gun (.i.e. tagging editor's user pages with sock tags and reverting all of the editor's edits), file a case at Sockpuppet Investigation board with the proof" and "Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits" is a known symptom of Sockophobia. So please educate me. Thanks in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly ed, not one of the blocking admins in question. Since you haven't yet asked the non-ArthurRubin admins about the authority being relied upon, even though I've suggested you seek that education from them, your demand for education starts sounding less like a good faith inquiry and more like something I don't really want to participate in. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I may reach out, but my immediate concern is with this particular block of this particular 1-hour old, 13 edit, non-controversial IP. Sorry, I thought you were chiming in presenting yourself as someone who is ahead of me on this issue and I mistakenly thought you were jumping in to help get me up to speed. Thanks again for your time. Hugh (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I was. (A) as to history and where you can read more; (B) adding that many have informally (i.e., without SPI proceedings) identified behavioral pattern for this IP; (C) that socking to evade a block restarts the clock; (D) that there has been a nonstop block since at least 2011 for at least one of the addresses; (E) that socking to evade blocks a "serious breach of community trust".

The only part I know I don't know is what authority the admins have to do the blocking once they are informally convinced the behavioral pattern is the same. It could be a case of implicit application of WP:Ignore all rules, but as I have said, you'd have to ask and the other two admins should know since they have done the exact same thing for the same behavioral pattern coming from other addresses. Contact 'em or not. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been very helpful. Thanks again for your time. Hugh (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Michigan IP

Hugh, go ahead and try to communicate. I, too, tried that several years ago. It didn't work for me, maybe you'll have better luck. (I don't have any admin abilities to stop blocks, though.) Good luck! Capitalismojo (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you notice him please msg me, thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Capitalismojo (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will too, though until convinced with a reason otherwise, I'm still going to encourage insta-blocking re article edits. Can we block from article talk but still allow user talk? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies and thanks for your support. Please do whatever you are comfortable doing. Ideally I would like to contact him while he is editing because I want to ask him what he is doing. If he is blocked I expect he may shift the conversation to the block. Oh, and probably nothing we do will help. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

He's been editing since at least 2010; such an editor has to be able (or willing) to discuss "What are you doing?" despite a block. If they can't (or won't) then WP-CIR applies, and I see no reason for patience or optimism, but those things are yours to spend, so I'll ping you if I seem them in real time and I remember. BUT your concern that WP-CIR appliesi in this way is not a reason to impact many editors' watchlists by not blocking on sight. What do admins Vsmith (talk · contribs), JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a scant reason for optimism: most probably I will discover WP:CIR applies as many more verse than me editors have concluded and then maybe I will join your squad and help with the reverts. So there. Hugh (talk) 15:33, 26 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)

108.73.115.149 (talk · contribs) have at it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Chicago

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)

And thanks for the great work on the Capital Fax article! Capitalismojo (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Something needing doing

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)

Hmmm. Ambitious. I scanned some of the archives over by there, the expenditure of elbow grease was formidable. IP rehab is wholly unsatisfying. You should know I am a body 1st kind of guy. The lede is the last step before GA. I would pitch in, particularly if the goal were GA rather than lede re-write. Global warming GA would be an astonishing achievement, it might very well be impossible, but, hey, just another windmill. Thanks for asking. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already a featured article, but there have been a great deal of changes since then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I did not know that. Most impressive. Based on my humble experience the last few months in this corner of WP I would have said FA was impossible. Hugh (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I may be 'way off base in my thinking, and even more for expressing my thinking, but here goes.... might you have formed your impression of the regulars in the broad topic of climate change based on observations of how the IP was/is treated? If so, the data set used for your first impression was very small and rather skewed. There are many regular editors who insist on good sources and coverage of the mainstream view of global warming|. At other articles, such as climate change denial and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, many of the same editors insist on good sourcing and NPOV presentation of those views also. At all climate articles, other guidelines making frequent appearance are WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:FORUM. It isn't a good area for editors who get mad, but those who can remain professional (e.g., presenting cogent logical reasoning based on good RSs without emotion) can make a valuable contribution. The better you are at it, the more grief potentially effective newcomers can expect to get. After all, if a new climate ed starts getting into WP:BATTLE mentality, they can be driven off, one way or another. If you decide to give it a whirl, let WP:ARBCC#Principles and WP:Dispute resolution be your road map and you'll do fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when I 1st noticed the IP I thought it was a bold editor daring to edit in an ownership zone and getting smacked down. This was based on looking at only 2 edits, which were crude but just so happened to have an inkling of an idea for a decent edit. Since then thanks to patient editors incl. yourself of course I see the bigger picture that most of the edits have no redeeming value and many can only be considered vandalism. I can get mad. I am relatively unfamiliar with DR, preferring topics that avoid conflict. For example, at 1st I thought Richard M. Daley was too "hot" for serious editing but my fellow editors gave me room to take it to GA. Life was simpler then. Your proposal will involve daily drama. G*d help me I have watched Global warming. I will not take point but I've signed up. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Template:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton invitation 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)

Paddy Bauler

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)

@Victorgrigas: That's a fun article to write! Yes, much has been written about Bauler, so much that it will mean hitting the books. How's your Chicago bookshelf, homie? Len O'Connor's "Clout" has some good coverage. David Fremon has a couple of pages on Bauler in the indispensable "Chicago Politics Ward by Ward." Royko's "Boss" has just a paragraph but it's an amusing anecdote. Dick Simpson has a new book on corruption in Chicago, it might have some Bauler. I tend to focus on the live crooks. I will help, though I won't take lead. Thanks for the note. Hugh (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: Good leads - thanks! I'll peck at this thing as time goes on. I used to live on North and Sedgwick and when I found out that this guy used to own a bar there and used to be alderman I was like 'I think his spirit visited the parties I used to throw' or something.

PC reviewer

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly tip

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)

Recent Edits

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just saying that it's disconcerting to see someone adding approximately 91 references to the Kochs in the last two months to a variety of pages. I'm all for adding funding sources to these pages, but I think there needs to be some kind of policy to enforce NPOV.

Perhaps we could propose something like 'top three donors' or 'top donor'. Arbitrarily selecting one donor and adding him 91 times sounds to me like political bias. I'm sure if there were a conservative editor in this discussion, he would say something about George Soros.

This might be a discussion that needs to be had elsewhere with admins involved. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DaltonCastle: Assuming this question is about political campaign donations, I am not convinced it is bias. Aren't conservative candidates proud to bag donations from the Kochs? However I agree that the right way to counter any bias is to write for the enemy and find the top 3 donors or top 50% donations for each (realistic) campaign in a district/state. Or, perhaps someone can create a wikidata project for contributions. Why do you suggest admin involvement (admins don't resolve content disputes)? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@HughD

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)

@Hrodulf

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)

"missed the point" I understood your message very well, thank you. I chose not to respond to your "top 3" idea because it is a non-starter. But since you press, may I respectfully remark that your comments here, and your recent edits, sweeping through dozens of articles deleting content in a quest for your conception of balance, suggests to me that you may not have a thorough understanding of the current policies and guidelines with respect to the content of articles. I support Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with respect to article content. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ask us to include content in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. You should make sure you understand this before pursuing changes. Thank you again for your feedback on my contributions to Wikipedia. Please seek support for your proposal elsewhere. Hugh (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"the spirit of Wikipedia" I disagree. I think it is precisely the spirit if you were to spend more time researching, reading sources, and adding content and well-formatted reliable sources to article space instead of subtracting. I would support and aide any effort of any ideology to improve WP coverage of funding of political advocacy groups. Hugh (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"I would support and aide any effort of any ideology to improve WP coverage of funding of political advocacy groups." Curious, because your actions seem to be contrary to your statement of "aiding any effort of any ideology". DaltonCastle (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness

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)

Thank you for your note. Two refs for content are not excessive. Please cite your source for the "general matter" you mention. Of course part of the role of refs is to establish noteworthiness "weight" if you prefer as well as verifiability. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not citing anything, sorry. Just sharing an observation. I got rid of the second sources in this case not because they were excessive, but because they added nothing useful to the reader. You may disagree with me, fine, I don't want to get into the usual pissing match over it. I'm just pointing out that your noteworthiness justification is unusual. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What looks to you like perfectly noteworthy and verifiable content at 1 ref looks undue to the next guy and content and ref both get deleted. Refs are for readers and editors. May I return the favor by pointing out that your pre-occupation with one and only one ref is, unusual. Hugh (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't insist on one and only one source. I generally leave 2-3 sources if they are all of high quality and independent of each other. This is a very common practice, supported by WP:CITEKILL (a very frequently cited essay). In this case, I got rid of the redundant sources that were merely reporting on what the Tobacco Control article said. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. Then the next guy comes along, who cares about some dumb old report, where's the noteworthiness? and the content is gone. Hugh (talk) 06:54, 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)

why would I want what? Hugh (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want the article citing a FreedomWorks press release (with a dead link) when it could be citing some mainstream news source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You ask as if you deleted a press release ref and replaced it with a mainstream news source. You didn't. You replaced it with a cn. Are you asking me about a hypothetical mainstream news source? Oh, look! Our good colleague Arthur just came 40 minutes behind you and deleted some content where you removed a source and replaced it with cn. Hugh (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not add a better source instead of reverting me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Add your mainstream news source and no one will miss the press release. Hugh (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, but oh well. Another lost opportunity to build goodwill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Stella horreum

	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)

AFP

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)

Thank you for your collaboration. Thank you for your recent edits. Please pardon me if I decline to discuss "your" edits on a particular article on my talk page. As I said there, please post your concerns of undue weight there, with specific reference to content, references, policy and guideline. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Here will add that I am sincerely grateful for your collaborations, and note in agreement that the article is getting better. See you on article talk. Hugh (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

add additional noteworthy reliable source reference for noteworthiness

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)

Thanks for your note. Our colleague the good doctor has also remarked on the tendency toward shall we say eloquence in my edit summaries. I know you and I have a level of trust, but alas the assumption of good faith is not universal, particularly in certain arenas. Especially with page and section hats targeting content, I don't mind investing a few seconds to communicate to my colleagues that I have thought about this edit and I believe it is due weight. I don't beleive I am violating any policy or guideline or best practice by providing detailed edit summaries. Since you reached out I would like to ask for your support in losing the tags, a guild copy edit, and good article nomination. I think the article is more than ready, a vast improvement over a few months ago when we both noticed it made no reference to the TPM. I am disappointed with collaborators who are quick to tag but do not follow up with discussion on specifics. May I also mention, with respect to the "misappropriated" documents, I really think a straight-forward, chronological unfolding is the most neutral. Rather than shuffle content to position our fav content first, I think the subsection is long enough to warrant its own, couple-few sentence lede. What do you think? Take care. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your reply...Yes, probably a good idea; a brief lede and then chrono section. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice regarding American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 notice does not imply misconduct. I am leaving this notice on the talk page of all editors who have recently participated in any ANEW report about Americans for Prosperity, because that page is now subject to a 1RR restriction. —Darkwind (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page etiquette

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)

Frankly, I was not confused at all, and I agree that the response could be inserted immediately after the item commented on. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

1RR

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)

It's too bad you didn't take my advice as I see you are not topic banned for two weeks. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bernard Stone

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)

Thank you for your work on Bernard Stone. Maybe we have something in commons? 108.195.136.98 (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In Commons. 97.86.80.98 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All the same blocked editor....

Diplomacy

		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)

The sanctions imposed on you were obviously not representative of community consensus and were way out of line, considering your mild proposal to insert a single well-supported and uncontroversial sentence, about Koch funding, into an article about a political group founded by the Koch brothers. Actually I was and remain astounded by how diplomatic you have been through that whole process, so I stand by the barnstar. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, they mean a lot to me. The enforcing admin has request some time to reconsider. Please watch for an appeal if it comes to that, I hope it does not. Thank you again for your support and thank you in advance for your continued engagement in accurately representing all significant views in our project. Hugh (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor Behavior ANI

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)

Topic ban imposition

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)

Continue any discussion about the topic ban here rather than continue at ANI. Stop all arguments about the article or your prior conduct immediately. The prior discussions are self-evident and I don't find it necessary to explain the concerns any further. It is self-evident and insulting to our collective intelligence if you want act like it's unclear what the various ANI discussions are referring to. If you want to continue to argue (even about the topic ban itself), it may be raised to a block and an extended topic ban. Again I'm presuming a level of awareness that your actions objectively are disruptive to the overall project. If you can't see that, then the project will need protection from you. - Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bernard Stone

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)

Thanks for all the re-editing you did on this article. I'm too busy today to look at it closely, but hope to get back to you in a day or two. Best, Yoninah (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Bernard Stone

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)

opinions

Should be cited and ascribed as such to the person holding them. In the Moncton case, I suggest my edit naming the person holding the opinion was complaint with that stricture. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• HughD, 4 different editors have had issues with the MJ article you have tried to insert into a number of different articles. You have undone edit by those 4 different editors. That is looking a lot like an edit war on your part. Please take the time to discuss the changes before you reinsert the text into any more articles. Springee (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

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.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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)

• HughD, the above will serve as a warning that you appear to be engaged in a wide ranging edit war, adding the same disputed material to several articles. Four editors have removed your edits.

• Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, three reversions by two editors [[4]]
• FreedomWorks, 2 removals, 1 editor [[5]]
• API, 1 removal, 1 editor [[6]]
• ExxonMobil 1 removal, 1 editor [[7]]
• Christopher Monckton, 2 removals, 2 editors and 1 significant change by a 4th editor which you didn't restore when restoring a removal. [[8]]

• Do not add the material again without going through the discuss part of the BOLD cycle. Springee (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, I would check WP:Hound because with just the diffs that Springee supplied in the comment above, it's clear that three editors are following you around and removing the reliably sourced material you've added to articles. For the most part, these editors have no history of editing the articles you've edited until you showed up, and then they promptly remove your material. This is a form of harassment called Wikihounding. If you're feeling discouraged or harassed, I'd double check the edit history of those pages to see if the editors in question were ever previously active before you added content. I don't know if there is a more efficient way to search, but I went back easily 1500-2000 entries in the edit history of some of those articles and saw no activity from the editors that keep removing your content.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot think of an appropriate adjective to describe the idiocy of that last comment. When an editor repeatedly adds material from a questionable reference, it would be absurd not to check other places where the reference is used. That is not "hound"ing Hugh (although his topic ban from AFP suggests it would not be inappropriate to check his edits on all related issues, and there is some evidence that AFP is somewhat related to climate change), it is merely checking on a single cluster of related non constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles under discretionary sanctions

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)

Digging for editors' motivations [9] is exactly what you shouldn't be doing. It puts your own motivations in an exceptionally bad light. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If someone feels they are being harassed on WP then they have every right to pursue inquiry without being threatened or discouraged about their motivations. The motivation is that editors want to contribute in a civil and fair environment which is compromised if people are being wikihounded.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

@Capitalismojo: You're at three reverts yourself at ExxonMobil you know, you both need to cut it out. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, please take care not to WP:HOUND Hugh. Cause it kind of looks like that's what you're doing: [10][11][12][13]. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not attempting to hound anyone. Hugh has added material from and a ref to (what I and other editors find to be) an inappropriate opinion piece from Mother Jones to many articles. This after not achieving consensus at the first such, perhaps doing so as to make a POINT. Hugh was warned by another editor about this. He edit warred to achieve the additions. Having seen Hugh blocked and topic banned for similar behavior in this vein I think am less tolerant of the behavior. Having said that I will confine my criticism of this content to the talk pages and allow the behavior to continue in its natural ultimate course. I find my own edits to be close to edit warring as well and will revisit the pages and self-revert any that Hugh's editing has left. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One-year broad topic ban imposition related to the Tea Party movement

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)

I encouraged a editor new to Wikipedia and new to an article to elaborate his initial contribution with secondary and tertiary sources. I did not realize I could be banned for that. Several editors communicated with this new editor, will be banning all who did not promptly report the new user to the username notice board? Please explain my appeal options. Hugh (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than back and forth here, feel free to template:ping me but I'll be watching your page. First, you ignored my entire mention of your conduct at AE. Do you think it would have been relevant to the discussion if you had told people that you didn't file the AE action because you were topic banned (it may have actually helped explained the stale portion if you want to say you took on more than the single article I banned you from) rather than suggesting that it was you "stepping away" based on the advice of an administrator? Do you recall your conduct? There was a series of parallel draft and regular RFCs and multiple arguments at ANI, of which you were one of the main points of focus (it was poor all around).

A topic ban is no joke. I am not some administrator who has edited with you and made a suggestion at random. Once I stated it and reported it in the ARBCOM log under my name and my bit, the ANI discussions, the RFC discussions, the talks for your head all ended as at that point, because the arguments then pointed to me to justify the topic ban and the lack of any further sanctions. There was a complaint about edit warring but I specifically chose to not get involved because I frankly hate editing these kinds of articles because they are what they are.

As to the new user, (A) I seriously question your judgment if you didn't think that perhaps you, as someone who I assumed had some experience with the controversial nature of these topic, may suggest that someone named "Kochtruth" walking into that environment wasn't setting themselves up for some trouble. However, that's not a punishable offense.

But your comment here was two comments in one: first, User:Capitalismojo rightly pointed out that this was a enormous edit and your response included "Please try to fix before you delete." Again, assuming that you, as someone who I assume has some experience with the controversial nature of these topic, would at this point understand WP:BURDEN, understand the concerns and would at least acknowledge them with someone who I presume you consider the view of a more experienced user rather than suggest that the experienced user "fix" a giant wall of extraordinarily problematic text and who did suggest "trying to include material piece by piece" and not outright dismissing it. As to your response to "Kochtruth", it's making me question your purpose here ("Kochtruth" was already behind the eight ball with that name).

Overall, the fact that you're ignoring the AE point and instead trying to "get" me so you can defend Kochtruth tells me everyone would be better off if you weren't editing on this topic. The first and foremost point is, it's annoying enough to deal with editors on these topics that ARBCOM created the sanctions, it got so annoying that ARBCOM let other admins create their own sanctions, it's annoying enough that other users are allowed to appeal to administrators about those sanctions. What nobody wants is editors who will misled other admins about their own conduct while reporting other editors on these topics as a way to "win" these stupid battles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Do you think it would have been relevant to the discussion if you had told people that you didn't file the AE action because you were topic banned" Please assume good faith. There is nothing nefarious here. I did not know there was a statute of limitations on reports of and administrator of our project, who is under editor restrictions in an area, deleting RfC notices in that area. I did not explain the delay because I did not know there was a delay I needed to explain. Within hours of my initial filing the reported editor got the ban in the record, after which I acknowledged it, perhaps somewhat coyly, "I was asked to step back," this is not actionable and certainly not topic ban worthy. Hugh (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I was not trying to mislead anyone. Hugh (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Wait, you understand I quipped "I was asked to step back" after Arthur brought the ban into the record, not before, right? Check the time stamps please. If I had mischaracterized a ban as advice in my initial stmt, I agree that would be bad. Hugh (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"frankly hate editing these kinds of articles" Thank you for your frank talk page talk. I hate it too more and more. For most of my career on Wikipedia I avoided them too. I had a mentor who said if you are going to do science, work on the hard problems. This year in my life I have been trying to make the best use of the time given me and when I have time for Wikipedia for better or for worse I am drawn to articles which are have for years been so cleansed and purged and whitewashed as to be not just uninformative but harmful. Hugh (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Please try to fix before you delete." Good advice, I stand by it. I understand WP:BURDEN. You are entitled to your assessment, extremely problematic, please allow as how another editor might see in the same edit an outline of a ultimately reasonable contribution. Hugh (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to get you. I guess I am trying to defend a new editor, is all. You harshed him bad. I'd be surprised if he were back. Maybe the guy will turn out to be a royal pain in the neck but who knows. Hugh (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. After you banned me for 2 weeks, I did not understand it, I tried to talk to you about it, you were clear you did not want to, and I really honestly thought stepping back was good advice, not to harp on that, but I did, so I appreciate you explaining. Hugh (talk) 07:01, 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)

"Good" new editors don't just wake up one day, pick names that are that partisan, create sandboxes..." On a good day they do! Many new editors pick bad names every day. The article was so bad that it is perfectly reasonable that most would simply laugh at our project but on a good day someone would take our "anyone can edit" thing seriously and roll up their sleeves. I prayed the day would come. Are you saying you diagnosed the editor as a sock for a well-known anti-Koch partisan disruptive editor? Hugh (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction. Try again if you want to take the Kochtruth case to ANI. This character maybe poisoned the well but I'm just the messenger about that. The rest I will take the weekend before I respond but I doubt we're getting anywhere. Make an appeal if you want but my two cents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to go to ANI. I don't know that guy and I am not in league with anyone. I am happy to hear that you will reconsider, thanks. Let me summarize: I respected your 2 wk ban; I never meant to deceive at AE, also please note no one was deceived; I am not Kochtruth and am not in communication with KochTruth and to my knowledge never have been; maybe a topic ban is inappropriate to the crimes of failure to report a bad name and encouraging a new user toward secondary and tertiary sources. Hugh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing to think about, if you please. I noticed earlier this week that a user notified you at your talk page, Hugh's at it again. I noticed tonight a user notified you at your talk page, Hugh deleted a comment from his talk page! I don't think anyone is out to get you, but may I respectfully suggest, please, no offense, but consider that it might be possible that some of our more adept non-admins maybe perhaps prefer an admin with a shall we say itchy trigger finger on the mop, not sure how to phrase this without offense, no offense intended, but please think about it. Hugh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your frank admission of never having read Americans for Prosperity. If you have time, skim an archived version from say January 2015, before my involvement, then skim the current version: My basic problem stems from the fact that I am an experienced GA writer trying to write GAs in a corner of our encyclopedia where a vocal minority much prefers incomplete articles to good ones. Hugh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your frank comments about how much time it takes to evaluate a filing. Unscrupulous non-admins can take advantage of that and file walls of diffs with no dates, no edit summaries, no counterparties, so that admins see a bunch of diffs and say, wow, look at all that, there must be something there. Who has time to wade through a week of diffs and sort out the 1RRs, 2RRs, and 3RRs? no one. Please just very quickly take moment compare the recent WP:ANEW filing with the filing I made at WP:AE as you contemplate who is making work for admins. Hugh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"you filed a report on the same article" I did not file a report on an article, I filed a report on behavior, behavior of an administrator of our project who, while under editor sanctions, deleted RfC notices. Do you have a problem with that? Maybe it will be declined, who knows, I did what I thought was right, I reported the behavior. I am in the thick of this, and as I said at AE, I really sincerely believe non-admin editors see the reported admin's behavior and benchmark themselves against it, and it is a very significant factor in the behavior issues in TPM, AP2, and CC. Please believe me I take no joy in the filing. It is my best effort to be part of the solution. My filing was not pointed, it is not political, it is not tit for tat, it is a sincere request for help with a very real problem. Hugh (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"you chose to lie" Not true. I never lied. Arthur answered the question, why the delay? before I could. It was the weekend as I recall. Arthur answered it, Hugh was blocked, before I could. Another editor jumped in, Hugh was blocked, with a diff, before I could. I had nothing to add. I later quipped "I was asked to step back" knowing no one would take it literally (although as a sidecar it coincidentally has the advantage of being literally true, and admin did ask me to step back) stoopid in retrospect because I should know by now everything I do will be interpreted in the worst possible light. This week a tried to express sympathy as a colleague update an article for deceased subject of the article and I caught grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• HughD, in the complaint against AR you stated that you had to wait two weeks before bringing the case because of a topic ban. It seems that you are now subject to a topic ban that covers the same topics (and more). Do posts regarding that topic after it has been ruled upon violate your topic ban? This is one example of such a post [[14]]. It would probably be best to let it drop and move on. Springee (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Stop wasting time trying to convince an obvious biased admin. I started a section at ANI. Arthur Rubin is the problem here not you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.220 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is another issue to which you are mentioned at the bottom. It can't move forward unless you specifically request it to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

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

I'm blocking you for a week for violating the topic ban, both for starting User:HughD/donorstrust and for editing at Citizens United v. FEC. You were instructed on how to appeal the topic ban and I see that you're starting User:HughD/sandbox which is fine. Again, that goes to WP:AN when you've completed it. However, I again begin questioning your judgment and your purpose here if your immediate response is to start draft articles about the same topic and then to start on the Citizens United case. And no, I do not care to go through another round of arguments with you about how you were naive and didn't really understand what you were doing. You've been here long enough to know the problematic areas, the problematic activities and you'd done nothing to further escalate matters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a typo in the last 8 words of the above? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just striking it all. My closing statement got mangled in my head somehow. The point is, there was a ban, and HughD has a right to disagree and to ask for an appeal but outright ignoring it is not a solution. The ANI discussion was, as I said, probably poisoned by that IP address but that didn't change anything in that manner. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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)

@Ricky81682: can you help me review this by pointing me to the wording of the ban? Chillum 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it higher on the page. Chillum 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

While the wording of the ban indeed only refers to "articles", this at the very best seems an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the topic ban while keeping to its letter. Was that sandbox draft not supposed to become an article? My suggestion would be to clarify that the ban applies to all pages, not just articles. The claim that donorstrust is not "at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers" is untrue according to the sources given in the sandbox, which I assume HughD has read. Huon (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. May I also please thank the blocking administrator for not deleting my sandbox. The file /donorstrust predates the topic ban. It was my /sandbox until yesterday when I began compiling notes for a topic ban appeal. I moved /sandbox to /donorstrust to work on the appeal in my sandbox; please see diff. In any case the topic ban does not include my sandbox. There was no edit to Donors Trust. There was no violation of the topic ban. There was no intention to violate the topic ban. I understand that my every move will be interpreted by some in the most devious possible light. The blocking administrator has been the target of many unfortunate spurious noticeboard filings lately and is very understandably frustrated. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• 20:02, 28 August 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-2,903)‎ . . User:HughD/sandbox ‎ (draft) (current)
• 17:10, 28 August 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,462)‎ . . N User:HughD/donorstrust ‎ (draft) (current)

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 tend to agree that Hugh's edits to Citizens United are not a violation of his topic ban. I'm not sure about "/donorstrust", as Hugh claims that the most important thing about Donors Trust is that the Kochs control it, but it is a sandbox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty well established that Citizen's United is a Tea Party group.[15][16][17] The WSJ says "Citizens United — a tea-party group behind the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court striking down decades-old limits on corporate political expenditures". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself does not say Citizen's United is Tea Party; please see Citizens United (organization) and afg. NE Ent 22:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: May I ask, what brings you by my talk page? Thank you for Googling "Citizens United"+"tea party", if you were interested in building our encyclopedia, you might please take your proposed content and reliable sources to Citizens United (organization). Checking the page history, an attempt was made in late 2014 to insert this noteworthy association, was tagged as needing a ref, and deleted soon after. If an astute researcher such as yourself had been around, that edit might have been saved, I wish you better luck. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 23:16, 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)

Apology accepted. Hugh (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the apology and the thank you for the unblock. Kindly consider noting the rescission in the discretionary sanctions log. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bernard Stone

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chicago

I see that you now have an interest in the quality and accuracy of the Chicago-style politics article. Might I suggest you joint the talk section rather than just adding tags? I've proposed merging the topic away. Do you think that is a reasonable plan?Springee (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment to talk page discussion. I believe you may have an unanswered:: question there. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As of the time of this posting there are no unanswered questions for me in that talk section [[18]].

• Do not remove undue and weight tags without discussion and consensus. Springee (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chicago-style politics (meme) for deletion

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)

I would ask that you respect the interaction block.

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 [[19]]. There is are current discussions regarding the use of the MJ article you are adding back to articles. [[20]],[[21]],[[22]]. The discussions are here [23] and [24]. My read on the consensus is that the article can only be used in limited ways. Springee (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What interaction block? Hugh (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently it is not an actual block. However, in the recent ANI you proposed such a block and I have also suggested such as a show of good will. I would suggest that we both adhere to such a plan because both of us have mud on our faces. Furthermore, the quality of the MJ article is in dispute thus you shouldn't remove the NPOV tags and really shouldn't add it in a way that might get reverted based on the findings of the NPOV NB and the RSNB (links above). Springee (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate an indefinite one-way interaction ban from you and would consider it a partial resolution of your blatant wikihounding behavior. May I ask, about when did you commence your generous 30 day voluntary interaction ban? I am curious because I would like to know when you plan to resume your project of wikihounding me in earnest. Was it before or after 23 September 2015 when you deleted an article I created? Was it before or after your post here on my talk page today? I tire of being your project. You are not here to work on the encyclopedia. You can't help yourself from wikihounding me. You are wikihounding me about your proposed resolution of your wikihounding. I understand you feel all my contributions to the encyclopedia are inappropriate, you need not remind me each edit; I understand you want me to go away; would it help you if I included "this edit not approved by Springee" in each edit summary? Hugh (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I took your "greeting" post on my talk page, posted after you suggested an interaction ban in the ANI, to be evidence that you wanted bygones to be just that. Sorry I misunderstood. To your specific article comment, the AFD ruling was the article should be merged into the older article. You had merged the content so the only thing left was to redirect the name. I didn't realize that would be problematic. Currently I am questioning a series of edits you are making that relate to the Mother Jones article that was a recent point of contention. Regardless, I was hoping that you would engage in productive discussions regarding the use of the MJ article since others have done just that. Reverting the NPOV tags without going to the talk page (the editor who added them included a talk discussion section for that reason) is not the correct procedure. Springee (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing ban

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)

You're violating your editing ban again [25], and this time I am going to report you for it. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Sorry, I missed the Koch connection. I will self-revert. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing? Not only did you fail to self-revert, you're continuing to edit the ALEC article [26]. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I forgot. I was already reverted. Sorry again. I will be more careful. Hugh (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "sorry" is really cutting it at this point. You don't seem capable of complying with the provisions of your editing ban. I honestly don't see how you could understand and accept a warning about editing on a Koch-related page, and then twelve hours later edit on the very same page again. It's not rocket science. Do a text search for "Koch" and "Tea Party" before editing a new page, and if you turn up any instances of those words, move on. If you're warned for editing such a page, don't turn around and edit it again the same day. Pretty simple, really. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I forgot. I will be more careful about editing in the Kochtopus, it is everywhere. Hugh (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, what's the duration of Hugh's current topic ban? I tried to track it town, without success. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman: One year from August 28, 2015. Details here: [27]. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also examine the log at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Tea_Party_movement. It includes the sanctions, a block related to a prior (possible) violation, its retraction and the AE request. Directed more to HughD than anyone else but admins are getting better about keeping track of this maze. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

HughD, your recent edits here are on a page that you previously linked with the Koch brothers and the Donor's Trust. [28] I believe this is a violation of your edit ban. {{Safehaven86's recent ARE related to your violations [29] 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)

@Springee: how is that related to the terms of the topic ban? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, this section [30] contains a discussion involving HughD and the inclusion of a Donor's Trust reference. In that conversation with HughD the involvement of the Koch brother's and Singer was mentioned. Furthermore, HughD was active in discussing/linking Donor's Trust with the Koch brothers. Here is an example, [31] titled "‎Columbia Journalism Review: Koch brothers top contributors in 2011". Hugh made a clear link between DT and Singer, "Support Inclusion - Paul Singer is noteworthy. Donors Trust is noteworthy. The relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy. Neutral, verifiable, reliable sources NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity agree the relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)". In that same section the Koch links were pointed out (Again Hugh has worked to link DT and the Koch brothers). If Sourcewatch is to be trusted then Singer and the Koch brothers are clearly connected [[32]]. If this was a singular incident I would say it was nothing. However, it comes after your warning just a few days ago. This looks more like testing the waters vs trying to avoid getting wet. Springee (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Springee, the percentage of your contribs that are reverts of Hugh, warnings on Hugh's talk page, talk-page arguments with Hugh, or reports against Hugh on various noticeboards is way too high. I know you two don't get along but you two really need to just avoid each other at this point. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, in reply to the monitoring comment, my recent edits were a continuation to articles in which Hugh and I were both engaged in editing. Based on an ANI against me I avoided editing any page related to HughD's edits for a month (note, this was self imposed, the ANI was not resolved). Hugh did continue to edit some of those pages thus when the month was up I also edited those pages. The large number of edited articles are all related to a single Mother Jones article and one other topic (one article). It is reasonable to look at what edits another editor is making if they are reverting edits I have been involved with. Fyddlestix comments were in good faith but I think he is reading more into this than he should. Incidentally, would you ask HughD to remove my quote from his home page (top of his home page, last quote). I find it's inclusion without my permission to be antagonistic. Springee (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of enforcement request

I've filed a request concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

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)

Request

Please remove my quote from your home page. Springee (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Second request, please remove my quote, used out of context and without my permission, from you home page. I was not surveyed and you are misrepresenting the nature of the quote. Please remove it. Springee (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the third request to remove the out of context and misleading quote from your home page. You have complained that you feel that you are being unfairly treated yet you have not shown that you are willing to treat others as you demand to be treated. Springee (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, please remove the quote in question as a show of good faith. As used this quote violates user page guidelines because it misrepresents my original statements [WP:TPNO]. Again I'm asking you to remove it in good faith. Springee (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have made a number of edits since I first requested the removal of the out of context quote. If you continue to make exits without removing the out of context quote I will report your behavior and ask others to remove the quote for you. The quote violate WP:IUC. Furthermore the decent thing to do when dealing with a non-content dispute such as this would be to simply remove the quote as a sign of good faith. Springee (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's nervy considering you are the one abusing your rollback privilege and page blanking. Hugh (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You are at 4 or 5 reverts with four other editors. And it is a matter of record that I have never ever abused my rollback privilege. Not once. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No one should have to remind you to follow the rules. You are already topic banned and have been blocked, you should be on best behavior not digging holes deeper. You've been here too long for this basic disruptive behavior. Please cease. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Searle Freedom Trust

Perhaps it would make more sense to create a separate article about the Searle Freedom Trust.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Eventually, yes. Hugh (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) For now, one of the most notable aspects of the Trust is the extraordinary effort Daniel C. Searle made to ensure the Trust's grantmaking accurately reflected his personal beliefs and values, which are currently under-represented in the biography relative to reliable sources. I would welcome your collaboration on the split when we get to it, soon. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think you should do this right now because most of it sounds off topic and is very likely to get deleted from the article very soon. I would just keep "Searle set up the Searle Freedom Trust to support free market economics.[1][2] The trust was worth US$100 million in 2007.[2] The trust will be depleted and closed by 2025 after the model of the John M. Olin Foundation, "to ensure that the Foundation will always remain in the hands of people who understand my [Searle's] intentions and are committed to carrying out the Foundation’s mission".[2]" and move the rest to Searle Freedom Trust. But I urge you to in-line every sentence in the last paragraph, and also try to keep it fair and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR Notice

Your recent edits on [33] violate the 3RR rule. Please correct this oversight. Springee (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You were reported for harassing me 14 September 2015. You were asked to cease your harassment and to not post on my talk page 19 October 2015. You are banned from my talk page WP:NOBAN. Again, stop your harassing behavior and do not post on my talk page. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

The report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected) has been closed with three days of full protection. I'm also suggesting you check with User:Ricky81682 to see if this article falls under your ban from the Koch brothers. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)

One week block for violation of topic ban

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)

"...Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics..." What is your understanding of the connection between the Tea party movement and Donors Trust? Hugh (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Donors Trust, "The Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Knowledge and Progress Fund, another of the Koch family foundations, contributed $3.3 million to Donors Trust between 2007 and 2011". That's clearly related to the Koch brothers. Your edit also added this link which similarly discusses the Koch brothers. Please do not insult my intelligence by disputing whether those are related to Tea party politics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant excerpt from talk page of topic banning and blocking administrator User talk:Ricky81682#Question on scope of ban, emphasis added:

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)

No one is insulting anyone. Please, what is your understanding of the direct relatonship, you mentioned above in your block notice, between the Tea party movement and Donors Trust? I was operating off of this advice from an experienced editor, above on this page: "It's not rocket science. Do a text search for "Koch" and "Tea Party" before editing a new page, and if you turn up any instances of those words, move on" and this, on your talk page: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity..." I feel set up. You green-lighted editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity makes no mention of the Kochs. I did not add any mention of the Kochs since the ban. An attempt was made to have our (forgive me) project reflect a connection between the Kochs and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity 16:27 6 March 2015 and was promptly deleted 17:13 6 March 2015 as WP:SYNTH and a WP:BLP violation, which stuck. The consensus of our (please forgive me) project is demonstrably that there is no connection between the Kochs and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. I am being banned for adding a reference to an article to a fund that the Kochs may have contributed to? How many degrees of separation from the Kochtopus do you expect me to recognize and steer clear? If the connection between the Kochs and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is so significant, why didn't Champaign Supernova simply add it to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity without bother you? Am I banned for adding a source that happens to mention Koch? I did not understand I was banned from adding a reference which mentions the Kochs. I will revert the edit you mention above. It's not worth it. Hugh (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC) I do not find "add new content to a page, a page not about the weather, new content which does not mention the weather, but citing a reference, which reference mentions the weather" at WP:TBAN. Please which clause of WP:TBAN justifies this block in your view? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt to incorporate into our project a Koch relationship to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was in 2013, please see 18:01, 10 July 2013. Minutes later the connection was deleted 18:35, 10 July 2013, with a edit summary and a talk page comment refuting the Koch -> Donors Trust -> Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity as WP:SYNTH, please see Talk:Watchdog.org#Recent edits. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Our project's article on Donors Trust makes no mention of the Tea Party movement and our project's article Tea Party movement makes no mention of Donors Trust. In any case I did not edit Donors Trust. If someone misinformed you or if you were mistaken in thinking there is some kind of relationship between Donors Trust and the Tea Party movement, that's ok, admins are human. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not add Donors Trust to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, it was already there, all I did was add a more recent transaction, 2012. It was there when you told me, "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." If the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity -> Donors Trust -> Koch connection was so significant and so obvious that it is insulting your intelligence to suggest it is not significant and not obvious, why did you tell me that? Hugh (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully ask for some small consideration of the fact that, the two edits you mention, one in your initial block notice, and one in your first reply, are both neutral, well-referenecd, good faith edits, non-controversial, and genuine improvements to our project. There was no intention to disrespect the ban or to test. Hugh (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You added content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers. Did you read that or not? If you're searching for content related to them and then adding the links specifically to articles that don't mention them and then specifically in a way to not mention them, I'm saying there are better ways for everyone else to spend their time here than trying to figure out the next nuance you're going to try to figure out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

False. I did not add content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers. Please provide a diff of me adding content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

False. I did not search for content related to the Kochs. I was searching for content related to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. You said Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity had not had any content added in long while. I found a more recent example of funding. I added it and a source. Hugh (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You designed a custom, hybrid, Tea Party Movement/Koch topic ban. You said Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope on your talk page. Your explanation of your administrative action in your block notice at the top of this thread was that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was in scope to a Tea Party movement topic ban. You switched to justifying your block because Donors Trust is a violation of a Koch topic ban in discussion. I agree Donors Trust is related to the Kochs. I have not edited Donors Trust. Hugh (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Request unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD

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).

Appealing user

HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hugh (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Block imposed at User_talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban; logged at WP:DSLOG#2015

Administrator imposing the sanction

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

@Ricky81682: notify thru block Hugh (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HughD

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.

Result of the appeal by HughD

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

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)

Really? A topic ban under WP:ARBTPM includes all organizations involved in the general area of taxes and spending? Has WP:ARBTPM been folded into WP:ARBAP2 and I missed it? Come on now, "Tea Party" is not the same as conservative or right or far right wing even. Hugh (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We could extend it to all of post-1942 politics if that would make it easier for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You said Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope of your topic ban, then when I edited Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, you blocked me. You can change your mind, that's ok, but a block is an odd way for me to find out you have reconsidered the scope of your topic ban. So I may learn from this block, may I please ask again, which clause of WP:TBAN most closely authorizes this block? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It didn't look like it was within the scope but if you are the one who knows it relates to the Koch brothers, then you can take on the onus of figuring out it's within the scope. This isn't a game where you try to get a "pass" to work on an article by messing around with me. I gave you the topic ban after you were playing the "I took a break" card when you were topic banned from a single article. Quit trying to "beat" me with nonsense like this. Most people would just abide by the ban, take a few months off the entire topic and then ask for it to be reduced, which is normally done. Instead you've repeatedly violated it, played dumb when called out, said you would self-revert, refused to do it, warned to take it seriously and now playing this game where you point out articles that don't have any connection when the connections aren't there while you fully know that there is a connection there and deliberate edit to avoid making the connection so that you can get to bypass the topic ban. If you can't find something else, anything else to edit that isn't an attempt to skirt around this topic ban, then a full ban may be needed. If you want to fight the ban itself, argue it at WP:AE when you get back but don't keep on testing me by playing this games and wasting my and other people's time having to police you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your narrative is mostly false. "said you would self-revert, refused to do it" When did I refuse to revert? Diffs, please. Hugh (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge Donors Trust is related to the Kochs. I am the most recent of a long line of editors who added that simple fact to our project and had it cleansed. Edit history shows that many editors think the connection between the Kochs and DonorsTrust is undue and that the consensus of editors is that there is no direct connection between the Kochs and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. I did not edit Donors Trust. I did not edit Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity until after YOU told me it was out of scope. I did not add Donors Trust to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, it was already there when I edit it, and it was already there when YOU told me Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope. I am not playing a game. I am not trying to beat you. I am not messing around with you. I am not trying to skirt or test the ban. I never edited to avoid any connection. I genuinely thought that YOU thought that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope based on what you said. This is my first topic ban and I thought you knew more about them than I. I am very human and I have made mistakes but this is not one of them and I have never "played dumb." I think I am much more likely to admit a mistake than you. I think I have done very well in honoring a ban you designed with extraordinarily vague and shifting boundaries. I was improving Center for Media and Democracy, but Champaign Supernova added Koch to it, and I backed off; he could have done the same to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity without bothering you, but he wanted a block. Some of the same people who cleanse Koch from articles are now adding it and also arguing that cleansed articles are Koch articles. I am not wasting your time, the time you spend explaining this to me is time you committed to when you picked up the broom and every time you take an admin action. May I respectfully please ask again, which clause or clauses of WP:TBAN most closely authorizes this block? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to this AE discussion, where you said you would self-revert for Institute for Energy Research after being told about violating the topic ban. Again, quit trying to play around the edges of this ban, it's not that difficult to find something else in the 4.9 million articles out here that doesn't relate, refer to or regards the Tea party movement or its politics. If you disagree with the ban, fine, actually argue about it or else these blocks will escalate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And when I went to revert, I found it was already reverted. Simple. I never refused to revert. I am a lot more evil in your mind than I am in real life. Hugh (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You did add Donors Trust to Searle Freedom Trust when you recently created that page, which was probably also a violation of your topic ban. I think the issue here is that you have said yourself that you think the Kochs are connected to the Franklin Center. You wanted that to be in the article, and it was until several months ago when it was taken out. So it's not about what the page currently says or doesn't say about the connection, it's about your view of reality. This might come across to others as if you are looking to edit pages that are Koch-related but don't yet specifically mention the Kochs, so that you can continue to edit within a prohibited area without appearing to technically violate your topic ban. Above you said your technique for avoiding editing prohibited articles was to do a text search for "Koch" and "Tea Party." If you had done that on the Franklin Center, you would have found "Koch" in the references. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was improving Daniel Searle, a collaborator recommended we split, I did the split, and the content related to Donors Trust and its refs went to the child, Searle Freedom Trust. You know this. Yet you joined this discussion to present these uncontroversial events as "Look! Ricky! Hugh added Donors Trust to an article!" You are more interest in gotcha than improving our encycploedia. I know you were heartbroken that my ban was not AP2. You are not honest. Your comment above was not in good faith. Do not post on my talk page. Hugh (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft WP:TBAN addition

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:

...

• articles that include wikilinks, wikilinks to target articles that mention the weather, even if the article is not weather-related, and even if the target article of the wikilink is not primarily weather-related;
• adding new content to an article supported by a citation to a source, if the source mentions the weather, even if the article is not weather-related, and even if the new content summarizing the source is not weather-related, and even if the source is not primarily weather-related; that is, all the content of a source, whether included in the summary of the source in the article or not, is considered to be added to the article content for purposes of topic ban enforcement;
• adding a wikilink to an article, if the target article of the wikilink mentions the weather, even if the edited article is not weather-related, and even if the target article of the wikilink is not primarily weather-related.

Thoughts? Hugh (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 seemed to be saying that you thought the article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, was related to the Kochs, the subject of your TBAN. Whether or not others agree, that makes it subject to the TBAN. I'm not sure your hypothetical is on point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Arthur Rubin. Correct. To reiterate, it is a ban on a topic and while this is a broad topic, it's not as absurdly large as a topic ban on all weather-related articles are. Specifically as to Franklin Center, as I noted at User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_scope_of_ban, when asked about Watchdog.org (related to another edit warring issue) I noted that there was no mention of the Koch brothers there on a number of in-linked articles including the Franklin (with a possible tenuous connection). Prior to HughD's involvement, this was what the Franklin Center looked like, which does include a reference to Donor's Trust which directly refers to the Koch family foundations and the like. I missed it and probably should have told HughD that the second level links are directly related. Whether or not that was an oversight on HughD's part is less likely to me when you examine this edit of HughD's which includes a citation to this article which clearly states that the Franklin center is tied to the Koch brothers. The point is, 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. This is a complete waste of my time and energy to police someone else like this especially given that articles that are even tenuously on the subject end up with HughD playing the "Our article" card and showing up in edit warring fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for admitting that. It means a lot to me. Of course you are allowed to discover new information and change your mind. I agree, I understand the domain better than you. But you understand topic bans better than I. You think I should have correct you, or at least avoided Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity anyway, even after you told me it was out of scope. I did not because I genuinely believed Donors Trust, Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, and Watchdog.org are out of scope based on my humble perhaps flawed understanding of WP:TBAN, not because I was gaming you. I have not and will not ask you "to examine article after article." Hugh (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"edit warring fights" Are you adding edit warring to your block notification? All of these articles are under TPM and/or AP2 discretionary sanctions which afford us more than adequate tools for addressing edit wars beyond the block currently under discussion. Hugh (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Our project's policy WP:TBAN provides guidance on what "broadly related" means in the context of topic bans if anyone is interested. The stated purpose of WP:TBAN is so conscientious banned editors may continue to improve our encyclopedia. I agree, mere mention of the subject of a topic ban is an inadequate criteria. In fact, WP:TBAN clearly authorizes a banned editor to edit articles that mention a banned subject, just not the parts that mention the subject, emphasis in the original. WP:TBAN does not say that the entirety of an article that mentions a banned topic is in scope, or that an article that wikilinks to an article that is in scope is in scope. Do you think it should? Let us collaborate together on improvements to WP:TBAN. Hugh (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"second level links are directly related." Indirect links, specifically deemed out of scope by our project's policy WP:TBAN, are in scope in the custom topic ban you designed for me? If this is your intention, please carefully describe what you mean by "second level links" and update your description of the scope of the topic ban in the ban log accordingly. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC) I have attempted to capture your notion of second level links, above. What do you think? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Arthur wrote: "...you thought the article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, was related to the Kochs..." Arthur, I understand why you would prefer to block me based on your speculations about what was in my head, because Wikipedia article space, talk space, and edit history clearly do not support a direct relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Kochs: our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity makes no mention of the Kochs, and the edit history and talk page of our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity clearly demonstrates that the consensus of editors do not believe there is a noteworthy connection between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Kochs, please see 18:35, 10 July 2013, Talk:Watchdog.org#Recent edits, and 17:13 6 March 2015. If you want to know what I was thinking, why don't you ask? At the time of my recent edits to our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, I was operating under the impression, based on an unambiguous statement from the banning admin, excerpted above on this page, that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was out of scope. That's all. I was not attempting to violate the ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, of course I was not surprised to see you pile on here, but your vigorous defense of the obviousness and significance of the Koch -> Donors Trust -> Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity connection is audacious, even for you, considering your edit history and talk page comments at Donors Trust, where you argued for excluding mention of the Kochs, saying the connection was unimportant and uninteresting Talk:Donors Trust/Archive 1#Unimportant connection. Hugh (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "our" you keep saying? Are there multiple people using your account? Are you referring to a reference you added? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why, us, of course. You, me, and the rest of our collaborators on our project. Wikipedia. Our project. Of course this is not a role account. I have been editing since December 2006 on diverse topics. I am the only one. I've been meaning to ask you about this. Your first notice to me of the block was on your talk page after our good colleague Champaign Supernova convinced you to change your mind on our project's article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity being out of scope:

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)

I have no idea what Champaign Supernova is nor do I particularly care. If you are topic banned from tea party politics including the Koch brothers, editing to include content about the Koch brothers into article is violating the topic ban. I don't particularly care how big the "Kochtopus" is because you aren't supposed to be editing anywhere in that area. The responsibility for not violating the topic ban is yours, and the burden is on you to show that you aren't violating it, not on everyone else to show how the article as the time you decide to start editing it doesn't have the magic words that you demand them to have before you won't edit there. If you want to argue that it's too broad because of the scope of "Kochtopus" or whatever you want, take it to WP:AE and have the scope shortened. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand my responsibility, I agree, if I edited to include content about the Koch brothers into an article I violating the topic ban, now, when did I edited to include content about the Koch brothers into an article? I have no desire to escalate to other forums. It would mean a lot to me if you were the one to unblock or to change the scope of the ban. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "I have no idea what Champaign Supernova is" It is the user name of the user who convinced you back on your home page that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was in scope. Hugh (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When did I edit to include content about the Kochs brothers into an article? Please reply with a diff or unblock. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not edit to add content about the Koch brothers into an article. Please unblock. Hugh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Kindly unblock or provide a diff in support of topic ban violation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ThinkProgress

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)

Notice of Administrative discussion

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding Disruptive editing while on topic ban. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive editing by editor already under WP:TBAN.The discussion is about the topic Watchdog.org. Thank you.-- User:009o9^Talk 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of topic ban

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)