User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/March

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Run something by you
HK is trying to convince me that he's not some of the socks you've blocked, so i'm going to have to run some things by you to get the true story. This IP address was blocked by you back in October as a sock of HK. I just ran a WHOIS search and it came back as Road Runner HoldCo LLC, which is based in Virginia and the IP address further geolocates to Florida through the Road Runner ISP. So, what's going on here, is my search wrong? Silver seren C 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * HK has been using socks long before he got to Wikipedia. He has used proxies and other techniques to avoid detection. For example, it is trivially easy to access a dial-up ISP from a different location. Sock detection relies on using a variety of methods, the crudest being the WP:DUCK test. Per WP:BEANS, if we disclose all of those techniques then puppet masters will find new ways of cheating the system. HK in particular has modified his behavior in response to past disclosures of the methods used to track him.    Will Beback    talk    00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was kinda asking George, as he's the blocking admin and would know more about this specific case. Silver  seren C 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah; with all due respect, and I appreciate your AGFing on this Silver seren, HK is only going to care about a sock if it's actually him. He's shown absolutely no reluctance to lie, cheat, cover up, do anything he had to to deceive and continue affecting the articles.  He hasn't cared about anyone else, has hurt legions of other interested people (including LaRouche supporters not aligned with / working for LaRouche's organization), etc.
 * That IP's actions directly repeated actions made by other accounts and IPs (and repeated afterwards by other accounts and IPs) that were CU connected to HK. Is it remotely possible that some random person out there, unrelated to HK, came along, decided to do the exact same 5-6 things HK had been doing to that article?  Sure.  The odds?  About zero.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so then, since presumably the LaRouchies of the world that might want to edit here include more than just HK, can you propose a way for someone who isn't HK to pass muster with you, Will, and the CU who's run many of these checks? If you can't, then we have a problem, because in effect, the use of the "It's HK" meme is preventing any LaRouchie whatever from editing here. Until and unless ArbCom or the community pass something saying that's not allowed... it's not allowed to ban them. I think LaRouchies are all totally bonkers but they need to be allowed to edit, if doing so is within policy, don't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that we shouldn't ban every LaRouchian editor just on the basis that they could be HK. We need some way to tell the difference and it's clearly not through bad editing, since all of these purported socks were just making edits to the article. Pro-LaRouche edits, yes, but that doesn't mean that every IP that edits the LaRouche articles is HK. Silver  seren C 01:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [e/c] A good start would be honesty. HK's socks have often pretended to have no previous knowledge or interest in LaRouche. See, for example, comments by Leatherstocking. Another practice that would help is not pushing the exact same text or points that HK pushes.
 * However the presumption that other LaRouche movement members would wish or be allowed to edit may be unfounded. The movement is harshly critical of social networking sites in general and Wikipedia in particular.   Will Beback    talk    02:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are actually fairly distinctive edit interests we know of; a random LaRouche member who started editing would probably not fall into the same patterns. The organization has some specific propaganda points it wants to hit and affect in media and reporting coverage, and WP entries, and those just keep coming up.  Normal people who are followers aren't going to be as narrowminded as the organization's interests.
 * We have permablocked IP ranges for the organizations which were organizationally problematic elsewhere before. That might be called for here.  But they seem to be acting to expand their use and trying to evade restrictions we have now.  If there's an active, network administrative aware effort to evade our protection interests then that complicates all sorts of things.  And there clearly is from the record.
 * Honesty and openness would be helpful, probably necessary for long term success. There are scientologists and various other organization members who edit successfully; they didn't hide who they were and stayed away from the group problems we had from those organizations.
 * It's somewhat complicated here by WP's standard of privacy - we can't really insist on people identifying themselves to us (or arbcom, or what). If someone were to voluntarily do so, that would potentially establish a basis for moving forwards unambiguously.  But we can't say "oh, you have to voluntarily agree to ID yourself or there's no option"; that's unreasonable.  We have to have another path.
 * I don't know that we have to clearly identify all the right answers to this problem right now, but establishing that there is one now (and I unambiguously agree with Lar that there is) and at least establishing some groundrules for how to engage if it comes up is reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And your input on this is far more helpful than Will's. At least you see there's a problem. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where Will and Slim are coming from, but as far as I'm concerned the only person who's unambiguously not welcome here is HK and their sockpuppet farms. Anyone else I will AGF about.  This has led to us being fairly tolerant of new HK socks, until we had enough evidence that they were in fact HK and not a new random LaRouche follower or independent interested person.  The situation makes me uncomfortable in both directions (I think it's hostile to newcomers, and I know we're letting accounts that turn out to be HK have a lot of rope before we act, when I'd prefer to be swifter) - I don't know if that's really ok, but if I'm equally uncomfortable with both aspects, that may be the best balance point to be found.  Additional review and comments and admin effort here would be appreciated.  Me being familiar with the issues and envelope doesn't mean I am the only person who should be intervening.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you. It's a quandary. On the one hand "better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be wrongly imprisoned"... but on the other hand, this project is not a system of justice, nor is it intended to be fair, and editing here is a priv, not a right... to be exercised for the good of the project and no other reason. I agree with you that HK should not edit here, nor should any of his socks, regardless of the validity of some of his points, if any. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to move away from the idea that it's only HK and socks who shouldn't edit LaRouche-related articles, because that's what causes editors to have to spend time proving that a LaRouche account is a sock. WP:BLOCK says that "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" may be blocked indefinitely, and WP:COI contains similar language. No one who works for LaRouche, or who has arrived at Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, should be editing articles about him or inserting his ideas into other articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a summary motion for that. It seems a stretch from normal policy. But it certainly might move us away from the current HK bugaboo, which is rather counter productive... as soon as someone says something complimentary about LaRouche, we know they're a LaRouchie and we can ban them. Problem solved. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the rest of Wikipedia was run the way your last sentence states, we wouldn't have very many, if any, IP addresses editing the project at all. o_o Silver  seren C 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't ban editors "as soon as someone says something complimentary about LaRouche". Leatherstocking edited for over two years before he was blocked, and Delia Peabody edited for about seven months before being blocked. No account blocked as a sock of HK has been unblocked due to misidentification because in each case there has been sufficient evidence to show that there was a clear violation. The ArbCom has already held three cases about HK, and their existing remedies are sufficient to deal with this single-minded serial puppet master.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that everyone taking a step back would help.
 * What Will and Slim said further above is more strict that what any of us has actually enforced. As Will said directly above, accounts are being allowed to edit for some time while reviews happen, e.g. the seven months for DP and two years for Leatherstocking, etc.
 * I personally am not asking for permission (community or arbcom) to shorten that period. I don't think Will or Slim is asking for that either, though they can speak for themselves on that point.  Public and private CUs are identifying some of these guys early; if we have to do it on behavioral evidence and the known behavioral profile, it takes longer, at least some months.
 * If there's concern about things being done too quickly, please feel free to review the record and identify any specific accounts that were zapped very quickly after appearing that didn't blatantly meet the profile or didn't get CU detected, and we can talk about those. I don't rule out there having been one - there have been a lot, over a long time, and I have no illusion of perfection on my account or anyone else's.  But I don't know of any we did make a mistake with.
 * This became very visible because the most recent sock had started an ANI thread immediately before being blocked. This was, all things considered, simply a matter of impeccably bad timing.  Profile information justifying a very close look came to light last week, and they would likely have been blocked a week earlier had I not had a health issue come up that took me away from the computer for several days.  While I was getting back to editing actively, the ANI thread started.  Cla68 and HK apparently saw this as retaliation for the ANI thread.  I see where they're coming from, but all I can say is that real life sometimes preempts Wikipedia, and that if Arbcom or the WMF want to know why I was away I can privately provide the emails associated with starting the review, an explanation of the medical reasons for the delay, and scans of the medical records.  Fortunately all is now well health wise (almost, problem A resolved but caused a sprained knee which I'm still dealing with).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We routinely block accounts whose main or sole purpose is promotion, including people arriving from politician's offices to remove properly sourced criticism. There's no reason to make an exception for the LaRouche accounts. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the LaRouche article a BLP? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To some degree, but also a political movement. Enough of a BLP to qualify as complicated by those rules, at least.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Rodhull emails
Maybe you could ask Rod for the emails and post a summary that leaves out private info, which might satisfy some of the peanut gallery. I also left a note with Jehochman, suggesting that both of you do that. I don't care much what is in the emails myself, but some people's curiosity/voyeurism seems overpowering. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicely said
I considered closing that thread but you did a better job than I could have. Well done. --John (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking on this task. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame
It appears that this article, just like the Aspartame controversy article, needs semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry activity check
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Well Done!
Excellent work putting your foot down in that incident, it had gone on far too long. Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Imp er ium Caelestis  10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Molten salt reactor article
When you get the chance, could you take a look at this? It seems pretty one-sided. Furthermore, there have been a wide range of molten salt reactors but this article has been pretty much taken over by advocates of one variant, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). It seems to me we probably need one article for molten salt reactors and another LFTRs. To some extent, some non-engineering enthusiasts seem to be confusing reactor cooling variations (water vs. liquid salt, etc.) vs fuel cycles (thorium vs. uranium).

The LFTR reactor design has been getting a lot of hype in the last 2 weeks; I'm instinctively wary of new (or resurrected) reactor designs that solve all the world's problems without any of the costs or issues associated with today's designs. They bring to mind some comments from Hyman Rickover almost 60 years ago (and still true): I'm not saying these designs aren't promising -- just that it takes a lot of practical engineering work to get a design from the expert pages of Wired magazine to the real world of some commercial reactor site. In any event, we need a neutral article, especially now when the concept is getting a lot of hype after the Fukushima debacle.
 * Hyman G. Rickover

I know you have some nuclear expertise and your review of this article would be helpful. I've left a similar message for Orlady who's worked on Oak Ridge-related articles.

Thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WW2
Howdy, your comment at the WW2 Talk page is being discussed. Please chime in there and help us work to consensus. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Foo
 In The End, It&#39;s All About Revenge (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)