User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Crossroads

George, fyi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Peer_Review HowardMorland (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia.--Zink Dawg -- 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel block

I think we might need to undo this. Although I agree with you that he wasn't taking any hints, he's right in the middle of clerking the EE case, which is important. Cool Hand Luke 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you bounce it around the Clerks list to see if someone could replace him temporarily, but if you feel his services are absolutely required for that activity then please feel free to unblock.
You might consider though that it appears that he's having a really bad day right now and he's reacting to things uncharacteristically badly, and that having him do active clerking at the moment might be a really bad idea.
Perhaps he's fine tomorrow and (whether he apologizes or what) doesn't do anything more problematic from here on out. But everyone I've seen who starts snapping out like this tends to be unreasonable for a few days. Sometimes it happens when people get sick, or overstressed, and when they get better or get a chance to relax then they're fine.
You have my permission and encouragement to use your administrator judgement and arbcom operational perogative as you believe is required, if you do think you need to undo. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. There's already a thread asking for a replacement. I'd honestly also like to see some acknowledgment from Daniel that it was an inappropriate remark, but in any event I'm giving you early warning that the block might not last 48 hours. Cool Hand Luke 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd leave the block, Luke. Actions have consequences.If he thinks WP is some great game, then it's time to trade it in and get a new one. SirFozzie (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Might as well unblock him. The distinction of inspiring me to fill out a WR member application is considerably worse than a two day timeout. They still haven't responded to the gmail exception request, though. ;) Durova320 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The horror, the horror... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
One junior clerk has agreed to watch over EE. Daniel is apparently normally offline at this time, and I'm going to bed myself. So for now, I suppose it stands. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to chime in and say that I too thought that the block was a little heavy handed and ask you to lift it. Sure, Daniel's comments were unfortunate and definitely not in the spirit of WP:CIVIL, but in the grand scheme of things they were pretty mild and it's not like User:Ironholds seemed particularly put out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
  • It's time that the block was lifted. If nobody else has unblocked Daniel by the end of the day, then I'll do so. All factors considered, a 48h block was not warranted. AGK 10:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thatcher has lifted the block. Now I can take both talk pages back off of my watchlist and go do something constructive. AGK 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Azwethinkweizm

This account was supposedly banned for vandalism yet the owner was not in control of this account until recently. Please reinstate this account. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)someone angry

Epycwin

I've had a look at some of his edits ... and unless I missed something, this doesn't seem to be a fundamentally anti-Semitic account. However, there's no doubt his long-term edit war at Organ donation in Israel merits a weeklong block. WOuld you be willing to agree to cutting it down to a week? Feel free to weigh in at his talk page. Blueboy96 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-Semitic about his conduct and Georgewilliamherbert should apologize for implying this to be the case. The block amounts to slander and a personal attack and its not the way new editors should be treated at Wikipedia. I agree that Epycwin needs to become more familiar with our policies and was a little aggressive in restoring his preferred versions to articles, but he will not become a better editor by blocking him based on flimsy evidence and what seems to be the personal prejudices of those doing the blocking towards the material he is adding. I'm quite shocked that this block has been allowed to stand. No other editors complained about his edits. If he was so disruptive, one would have seen evidence of others trying to approach him to get him to change his editing behaviour. I don't even think a one-week long block is fair here considering how unfairly this editor has been treated. Tiamuttalk
Please feel free to get a third opinion on ANI. ANother admin already reviewed and left the block standing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
On this subject again: I upheld the block, explaining that it's not antisemitism that's the real concern, it's the edit warring and POV issues. He's made a fairly positive response, agreeing to work to avoid edit warring, engage in discussion, and has also agreed to avoid the topic of Israeli organ trafficking (though he may look like an SPA on this issue, his primary interest is organ donation / organ trafficking, not specifically Israeli. I think his contribs do support that). What do you think about unblocking now? Mangojuicetalk 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't entirely believe that will be successful, given his prior intensive focus, but I don't want to stand in the way of someone else working with him in good faith to try and see if he can become a positive contributor.
Policy is that we AGF. I personally don't at this point, so I won't unblock, but I trust your admin judgement and discretion. If you think that giving him a chance is appropriate I will support your use of your judgement and discretion in unblocking.
I have no objection to the possibility of being shown to have been wrong, that he can become a productive community user. If that happens, we all win. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Policy is that we AGF. You have not. Your first interaction with Epycwin was to block and slander him based on no evidence, but your own personal prejudices. The accusation of anti-Semitism is a serious one and its no wonder that other admins have been loathe to undo your block as a result. You should undo it because you failed to uphold policy as you admit above. Shame on you for making your bad judgement the responsibility of others. Tiamuttalk 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Policy is that we AGF until we have clear evidence of a problem. I am far from the only person who's seen a problem (of some description, we have disagreements on exactly what) with his conduct.
Again - you're welcome to float this to ANI for additional input. Or any of the admins who have looked at the situation and commented on his talk page can act themselves or float it to ANI. My opinion of the situation has not changed so far. I am not convinced we must keep him blocked to the extent of objecting to someone else weighing in and doing so - but my opinion still is that blocking was and is appropriate, and I will not unblock. The appeals process from that is any uninvolved admin (several have looked and discussed, but not acted yet), then ANI, then Arbcom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
While I would have preferred you simply lifted the block without the unnecessary drama that is sure to ensue from an ANI filing, you leave with me no other choice. ANI thread is here. Tiamuttalk 20:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I told you a while ago that I have no problem with an ANI report and review. Drama does not follow from every incident reported there. It's the appropriate approved escalation path for things like this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is that once an accusation of anti-Semitism is made, it tends to stick, particularly if the person making it does not retract it. Epycwin has vehemently denied being anti-Semitic and no solid evidence has been presented to that end. Assuming good faith one might see his interest as really being in the organ trade in general, as he said, and that he was just prompted to write about a subject getting coverage in the news that he knew some stuff about. Assuming good faith, one might see that he has never been warned about edit-warring and may not have known what that is. But you are entitled to your opinion, as are others. ANI is the right venue. Thank you for suggesting it. Tiamuttalk 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Email heads-up

I've sent you an email through your E-mail this user link. Thanks for listening, either way (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted W-87 image

George - I don't know how image deletion works, but I cannot find the discussion that resulted in the deletion of the W-87 drawing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_23#File:W87_Warhead.jpg

It was the first open-source drawing of a spherical secondary, and it was accepted for several years as a fair use image on English Wikipedia. I think it was useful, especially in comparison to the W-88 image where the relative positions of the primary and secondary are reversed. There seems to be a suggestion that it could be re-drawn, but how closely could it be re-drawn without being the same?

Also, the image has a history. Sam Cohen accused the Cox Report people of giving away secrets when they published it.

HowardMorland (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me look into this... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would have said had I known it was up for deletion:

Since the picture File:W87 Warhead.jpg has been taken down, I cannot see who posted it or when.

It was first displayed in the Cox Report article by User:Petri Krohn on 6 July 2006; I can't tell why. (User:Petri Krohn has had an interesting Wikipedia career, 27,000 edits in 4 years, and then banned for a year. He/she seems interested in the politics of Eastern Europe and is prone to get into edit wars about something to do with Estonian nationalism, I think. User:rootology, who issued the ban, shortly thereafter quit Wikipedia in disgust. None of this seems relevant to the W87 drawing, but you will run into it if you try to contact User:Petri Krohn.)

The picture's relevance to the Cox Report is a criticism by Sam Cohen, the self-proclaimed inventor of the neutron bomb, who said that including the drawing in the public version of the Cox Report was giving away secrets. The controversy is explained at http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W87.html:

  • This schematic of the W-87 is from the Cox Committee Report (the Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China). Its accuracy is debatable but the features depicted make sense, and this diagram prompted former weapon physicist Sam Cohen to remark: " ... But what should be at least as disturbing is that the Cox report presents a beautiful multicolored diagram (see graphic) that details the workings and components of this highly classified warhead. That is, the Cox report provides an extremely useful blueprint for use by Pakistan or India." Insight Magazine, 16 July 1999.

Cohen seems to have been unaware the drawing had been made from open sources and published by U. S. News and World Report four years earlier. It is true this controversy is never spelled out in the Cox Report article, so the appearance of the drawing in the article may be puzzling to the reader, especially since it does not depict any of the warhead designs involved in the alleged espionage. What it does show is the first-ever open-source depiction of a spherical secondary, and it shows it in its usual position in the narrow end of the re-entry cone.

The Cox Report espionage allegations were based in part on Chinese knowledge of the W88 warhead, in which the relative positions of the primary and secondary are reversed. This difference between the W87 and the W88 is also a factor in Richard Garwin's dismissal of the Cox Report as much ado about nothing.

I first displayed the W87 drawing in Nuclear weapon design on 14 December 2007. It makes a useful contribution to that article because it illustrates the standard arrangement in contrast to the W88, which is also depicted in a schematic drawing.

User:Shaddack displayed it in the W87 article on 31 January 2008.

I could re-draw the image, but I think the original drawing has historical significance and is better. The Cox Report sort of put it in the public domain, and Sam Cohen gave it credibility.

HowardMorland (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:BobMifune

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm guessing this guy isn't going to be around here much longer anyway, given his recent conduct. Best to let him hang himself, and he seems to have laid in an ample supply of rope. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. :-) --BobMifune (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, right. Yeah. Now he's stalking me on other users' pages. Good idea to do that on an admin's talk page. Glad you're keeping an eye out, GWH. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick check of the edit history, combined with a little slip up where he/she edited with the wrong sockpuppet account (on the Mark Levin talk page [[1]]) provides ample evidence that User:BobMifune and User:Umlautist are the latest sockpuppets of User:Eleemosynary (the last banned sock for this user was User:StephenLaurie - blocked right before these latest accounts came online. Just thought you should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.171.212 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary, User:BobMifune and Mark Levin

I just noticed your message at User talk:BobMifune#Both of you blocked for 24 hr for 7 reverts on Mark Levin. I guess this is enough abuse to trigger the sock policy, so I'll point you to User_talk:71.183.171.212#Anyone home?, where an IP makes the claim that BobMifune is a sock of User:Eleemosynary. (I had noticed this IP adding sock templates). The behavioral data appears clearcut, and both Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eleemosynary and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eleemosynary are probably correct. I did not file at SPI when I first saw this, since I wasn't sure that it mattered, but I guess it does. There is an existing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary/Archive and that editor is still indef blocked, since April 2008. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up on a block evading user

Hello, you helped me out with a request on ANI back in July and said to let you know if the user was back. This was Rock5410; you took care of a series of rangeblocks to help shut him down. Since then, he signed up as User:Sita manu, which he then changed to User:MikeDogma. After the change, he recreated Sita manu and that's the primary account he's been using. He actually admitted he was Rock5410 under a new name at one point. I've been naive and trying to help him out and coach him, thinking I might be able to get him to change his behavior. He repaid me by vandalizing my user page and calling me names, at which point I said I was done and would report the next bad edit he made. Today he did a promotional redirect for an organization he wants to come up in the top 10 of search results after I explained it would be disruptive to do so. It's not a major disruption, I know, but given the history and multiple prior warnings for redirects & moves, I feel like he's had enough chances. I'm just tired of playing the games. I think you were right on ANI; we just need to convince him to go away. Can you please block both of the accounts (Sita Manu and MikeDogma)? It would be great if you could keep an eye on the IP ranges too; given his past behavior his next step is likely to be vandalism & retaliation from the IPs.

There's more history from the last few months; I'd be happy to walk you through the whole saga, but I figure your time is probably better spent elsewhere. If you need specific info on anything, let me know. If I'm just way out of line here and you see another solution, let me know that too; I'm at a loss as to what to do besides blocking. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I will poke my head in and take a look. I'm pretty busy at the moment, but this sounds worth investigating. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; anything you could do would be appreciated. He got a warning from another editor today for blanking a page. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Two of the IP addresses (1, 2) were blocked today for vandalism. The blocks seem to have stopped him for now, but I suppose we'll see if he's back at it tomorrow. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you're busy, but I wanted to give you a heads up that he's created another account, User:For Loop, which he's used to request a move and talk about himself in the third person. I put in a request for a sock puppet investigation today, so hopefully this will get resolved soon. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rita Boncompagni Ludovisi(Jenrette)

Hi George,

I wrote you a few weeks ago. However, I have no idea whether my message was received by you.

It is perplexing, even disturbing, to read the various comments made by multiple editors to the Rita Jenrette page. I am sorry for using third person tense.

I never desired to have a Wikipedia biography made of my life. My life is quite private, now, and I would like to keep it that way. Having said that, if this page cannot be erased, then please correct the following inaccuracy. I am an alumna of HBS, having graduated from the OPM program, but I did not receive my MBA from Harvard Business School. The OPM program is for people, many older than your average MBA student, who are admitted to HBS for a three year commitment of one month per year. The OPM participants study the exact curriculum of the MBA students and are rigorously screened before being admitted to the OPM program. However, OPM graduates do not receive an MBA but they are accorded alumni status.

I find it very curious that one editor stated that I am attempting to give undue attention to my work, as a Research Associate, at the Office of Technology Assessment. To me, the position paper Ray Hoehle and I worked on, for several years, was by far the most important work I have ever undertaken, in my life. It was based on PL 480, the Food for Peace Program, which was very important to the Chairman of OTA, the late Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and subsequently to his predecessor, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. This paper was presented to the Presidential Commission on World Food Hunger. Ray and I tackled the problem of why our food aid is not reaching the millions of starving people, in Third World countries. It is not enough that we send food aid to starving people but it must reach these people. We found, through our research, that most of our food aid either rots, in harbor, or corrupt politicians, in the recipient countries, take the food products and sell them on the black market. I hope our conclusions, on how to tackle this very real problem, have resulted in tangible changes that have, at least partially, moved us closer to a solution. Personally, working on a problem of this magnitude is by far more significant than posing for Playboy. Of course, Playboy was a outrageous aberration and something I will have to live with for the rest of my life. Nonetheless, how can anyone state that my work at OTA was an attempt to place myself in a favorable light? After all, my research work was completed three years before I appeared in Playboy, or even imagined that I would pose for Playboy, which is another story, in and of itself...

As I wrote, previously, people like, no rather they need, to stereotype others and when they cannot fit a person into a certain category they become enraged. One editor stated that having descended from George Washington and James Madison that I have slave owners in my background. Honestly, I don't think we can look at George Washington or James Madison with our twenty-first century sensibilities and perspectives. I am rather happy to have both men as my ancestors. Additionally, this same editor stated that my husband's family are fascists. Yes, his grandfather was governor of Rome but he was a royalist and when Mussolini threw his lot in with Hitler, Prince Francesco Boncompagni Ludovisi went underground and assisted the allies. The Germans had orders to execute him on sight. There is a plaque at our home with deepest thanks from the British Red Cross for allowing them to use Villa Aurora, in post war Italy.

As Rousseau said, we are all born into chains and this is as true today as it was in the 18th century. To me, there is no such thing as objectivity. We are all bound by the chains that limit our thinking, our perspective and our objectivity. Case in point, is the reaction from a number of the Wikipedia editors to me and to my subsequent marriage to a Roman prince. Why all the animus, particularly the hostility towards my husband and his verifiable historic family? One editor, said he cannot find anything about my husband on the Internet other than a perfume line. Is his line of thinking based on the premise that if it doesn't exist on the Internet, it does not exist? My husband graduated third in his class from ETH, n Zurich, the equivalent of MIT, in the States, with a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering. He is from one of the most historic families, in Europe, and his birth certificate issued on February 21, 1941 states, Principe Nicolò Francesco Boncompagni Ludovisi. All of this animosity and cynicism has given me much food for thought...

Oh, yes and one editor wrote that my husband wrote Page Six, using Lewis Lapham as a reference to his identity. This is not accurate. Richard Johnson, the editor of Page Six, was written a private e-mail from my husband when a young New York socialite was claiming, in Page Six, to be descended from his family. My husband wrote Richard, whom I have known for decades, that there was only one young American woman tied to his family, Princess Delphina Lapham, daughter of Lewis Lapham, who is married to his youngest son, Bante. I find it hard to believe that Richard shared this private e-mail with this editor and how this editor, unless he accessed Richard's e-mail at the Post or works for Murdock, was privy to this private e-mail communication. Otherwise, this particular editor was passing along second hand information which was neither accurate in tone nor in content.

I thank you for reading this post and allowing me to vent a bit of my frustration.

Rita Boncompagni LudovisiPrincessrbl (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pushing the button?

Hi George~! I'm not sure if this qualifies as pushing the button but from what I can see, Koalorka wasn't even involved in the article's discussion page of F-15 Eagle or read through the relevant edit history before making his opinion heard on ANI. And even though he had read it there and then about it, he didn't even have the proper courtesy to inform me of the accusation proceeding before making such comment. Frankly, I considered that to be downright obnoxious and plain rude talking bad about someone behind their back. Thoughts? --Dave1185 talk 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He just goes on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoner_63&curid=1187397&diff=321766751&oldid=321763756 . Some guy (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

editing FAT MAN Article

Hi George, Thanks for the kind comments, I must admit to being totally new to editing Wiki, but I wanted to contribute to an obvious typo. I will sort out a user name and password.. :) Joe. UK Yacht 'Ruddles' Portugal at the mo. 85.242.16.201 (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User: Azwethinkweizm

Please revert the ban on user: Azwethinkweizm. He is an avid editor and monitor of the Mabank High School page and is unable to edit due to a ban caused by a school network issue. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking

George, when there was last a discussion on AN/I about Leatherstocking (talk · contribs), [2] you said you were keeping an eye on him. He has continued to cause problems on the LaRouche pages, making or restoring material that Herschelkrustofsky favored. His edits include restoring material from non-notable Russian and Chinese sources (in Russian and Chinese), and removing material from The New York Times. It has reached the point of high farce. Technical evidence has now emerged that links Leatherstocking with LaRouche's publishing house, American System Publications. (HK was directly linked with this company.)

Leatherstocking has repeatedly denied having any connection to the LaRouche movement (e.g. [3]). He has said that, when he first started editing Wikipedia, he was "only vaguely aware" of LaRouche. [4] He has edited logged out several times, acknowledging that it was him (e.g. [5] [6]). The reason he was never blocked with the other LaRouche accounts is that his IP, 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs), geolocated to North Carolina, [7] whereas the other LaRouche accounts were based in a LaRouche office in Los Angeles.

It now seems that this geolocation was inaccurate. Another check shows that Leatherstocking's IP belongs to American System Publications in Los Angeles. [8] [9] Here are two links that connect that company with LaRouche. [10] [11] The same IP was also used by the LaRouche Youth Movement on December 17, 2008. [12]

In light of this, I would say there's little doubt that the Leatherstocking account is operated by HK or someone connected to him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After extensive review I could find no contradictory evidence or exculpatory information. Sockpuppeteers associated with LaRouche organization IPs are not welcome here anymore. He is now indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/October&oldid=1146421936"