Hughiefd

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to An Inconvenient Truth appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your version is more accurate, but I agree with KDP that it's not neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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).

Hughiefd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

dispute allegation of sockpuppetry

Decline reason:

Your responsibility is to prove that you're NOT the person in question, not make vacuous suggestion that you're being blocked by "administrators who hold opposing views on climate change", or by railing on about technicalities. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (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.

I believe I'm the subject of a mendacious blocking by administrators who hold opposing views on Climate Change.

I have not used different identities or email addresses to edit pages.

I believe I have not attempted, nor even conceived the idea of attempting what is regarded as "sockpuppetry".

What evidence is there that I am supposed to be a sockpuppet of user Sciaby?

What cause was there to warrant an IP address check? - I understood that fishing is prohibited? Is that no longer the case?

Are the administrators aware that over 1,100 users are implicated in the charges against Sciaby? - this is no small number; - what evidence is there to prove that these users are guilty?

It's my job to prove my innocence?

What madness. What about the administrators prove my guilt before indefinitely blocking my account.