User talk:Delia Peabody

__NOINDEX__

This account has been blocked based on behavioral and timing evidence linking it to the Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppet account grouping. It has been a functionally single-purpose account for some time, focused on Lyndon LaRouche topics, and has edited in an unambiguously pro-LaRouche manner. It is sufficiently behaviorally linked to recently-indefinitely-blocked who was confirmed via IP checkuser information that this is a strong sockpuppet case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

 * }

Edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. —  Spike Toronto  19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto
—  Spike Toronto  03:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

LR
I have amended or removed the statements which you tagged, and therefore removed the notice about misinterpreted citations. If you think that there are still inappropriate citations in the article, feel free to put it back. BillMasen (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
As I asked you on the talk page, please discuss your intention before making a major reorganization.  Will Beback   talk    12:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Non reliable source at Death panel
you reinserted text that I deleted which contains a non reliable source. "Verifiability" alone that is not sufficient reason for including a citation in Wikipedia. The source must comply with reliability criteria. I see that you have not edited Wikipedia very much. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. I strongly suggest that you revert this addition and then go and read WP:RS. The article you edited is subject to strict controls that means that I cannot revert this for you. I particularly draw your attention to this.If you fail to revert the entry after this warning I will have little choice to report you to the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion
Hey, nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Sorry I missed the discussion on the article talk page initially, and commented only in the edit summary. I reviewed the talk page discussion and responded there verbosely. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear on this point and was not previously brought up. If you look around at other articles you would find out this pattern is usually preserved, though some exceptions do exist. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Without belaboring the issue, suspicions about this account go back much farther than yesterday.   Will Beback    talk    04:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This block should be undone pending presentation of this "behavioral and timing" evidence in a public forum. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can include it in a page titled "Instructions for HK to avoid future detection of his sock accounts". ;)   Will Beback    talk    06:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it turns out there is additional checkuser evidence that Delia Peabody was involved in socking.   Will Beback    talk    06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, link to the SPI and email me the rest of the evidence. Otherwise, how are you privy to confidential checkuser information? Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'd be satisfied with any amount of evidence. Can you point to any of the past socks of HK which you think were properly identified and blocked?   Will Beback    talk    06:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are a regular editor in that topic area, how are you, apparently, privy to confidential checkuser information which I assume would only reside with an uninvolved admin. You are an admin, but are you uninvolved? Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so you can't point to single sock of HK's that you believe was correctly identified. You've already said that you believe banned editors should be able to edit Wikipedia, IIRC. If so, what do you care whether this account is a sock of a banned editor or not? If you deny that HK's ban is an impediment to his future editing, then what's the point of sharing evidence with you anyway?   Will Beback    talk    08:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Will: Please email me the additional checkuser evidence, wherever it was you got it from (and explain how you came by it, please). Or stop bandying about that you have secret evidence. I ran checks, I saw no direct connection to any other account. I could be wrong of course but I'm not seeing this block as justified based on the evidence so far available to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say it isn't immediately clear to me that DP is someone's sockpuppet.

I am not an admin and I don't hold any positions of responsibility here. It's abundantly clear that Views of Lyndon LaRouche has long been subjected to POV-pushing by many puppet accounts (I neither know nor care whether they are HK socks or someone else's).

Apart from a small number of admins, people who edit LaRouche-related pages are almost entirely pro-LaRouche POV pushers. I had to contend with these people as well as with Delia. Based on her edits and behaviour alone, Delia was not one of them, but someone who was rather naive about Larouche, and seemed to put WP:RS on a pedestal without considering other higher-order policies such as WP:V. As usual, most editors could not be bothered to step in and help improve the article, without a vested interest in doing so.

Wikipedia has hundreds of administrators, and most of them have never edited anything to do with LaRouche, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere (which all three admins above have done). May I suggest that you involve some of them? BillMasen (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill - I am not going to interfere with discussion by others of the unblock request, as I am the blocking administrator, but let me respond to this point.
 * I am not topic-involved on LaRouche. I'm administratively involved; I've been involved in sockpuppet account detection and blocking, and in page protection activities, for years.  But I don't edit the articles for content.
 * Delia's behavior (and others') fit exactly into patterns assocated with Herschelkrustofsky. There were a very large number of accounts which were associated with HK (over 100) which were operated from within a LaRouche owned publishing company.  This went on for some years.
 * That company went to the trouble of getting a new IP address range; I can't say that they did it to try and let the sockpuppeteers avoid scrutiny, but they certainly used it to do that. It went on for some time with the new IP range and dozens more sockpuppets before it was identified and all that new bunch were blocked recently (if they hadn't already been).
 * We have repeatedly blocked users on behavioral evidence only, as I did here. As a rule, we have eventually tied those behavioral-only accounts in with other accounts operating from known IP addresses, or sharing other checkuser-confirmable factors with known sockpuppets.  After I blocked, a checkuser confirmed that this one and two other newer accounts were direct sockpuppets.
 * Delia was saying they wanted reliable sourcing to be their primary focus on LaRouche topics, but in fact edited directly on a large number of topics and viewpoints that have become a signature of HK. It's quite remarkably consistent and identifiable.
 * We're not doing this arbitrarily or capriciously. We're doing this (repeatedly blocking new accounts on this topic) because they've consistently been shown, with technical confirmation, to be part of a years-long, organized campaign run out of a LaRouche company to try and affect Wikipedia's coverage of articles on him.  It's one of the more persistent and insidious ongoing abuse campaigns we are facing here.
 * See for information: Long-term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Herschelkrustofsky, Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that detailed response. BillMasen (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one clarification -
 * I said "After I blocked, a checkuser confirmed that this one and two other newer accounts were direct sockpuppets."
 * I was trying to be clear, but that may have confused things. The three accounts in question were linked to each other - Delia == Pachuco cadaver == TidyBorg.  They were NOT tied by CU evidence to HK.
 * However, the overall behavior - a small cluster of newish accounts, all sockpuppets of each other, all editing LaRouche topics and related topics - is how we generally identify the new IP ranges used by HK, which we generally eventually are able to connect to the organization.
 * I want to be clear not to mis-state what the CU actually found. It was not a smoking gun of this being HK.  What it was is suggestive of HK in that HK has done this before (gotten new IPs, created new set of sockpuppet accounts for the new IPs).  But it's not CU linked at this time.
 * My apologies if my initial post left the wrong impression on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I am holding pending receipt of information about who did the check, and what they did, so I can review it for myself. It may be the check is valid. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ID of checkuser was emailed to Lar, who can follow up with the CU offline. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have followed up, awaiting response. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you not seek the help of some other administrator who unlike yourself has not edited the pages in dispute, as I suggested? BillMasen (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you referring to? For reference, my last 2500 edits contain 5 edits to LLR related things, all to talk pages, and of those, most are calling into question the actions of Will Beback in pushing his POV, rather than taking positions on content. Also for reference, I'm a CU and I want to know what's going on here. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My question was directed towards you, Lar.
 * You have indeed taken a position on content in LaRouche articles (for example, see this discussion) It seems to me that accusing an editor of POV-pushing is taking a position. In what sense are you less 'involved' than Will Beback?
 * Why not get another CU who has nothing to do with these disputes? BillMasen (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit was me pointing out that you had made something read worse with your edit. Not exactly much involvement, you're grasping. As to how much less than Will Beback, well... I've 5 edits in this space in my last 2500 edits... how many does he have? How many do you have? You're pushing POV here too, it seems, while trying to appear disinterested. I just want to know what's going on. Will Beback claims there is CU evidence tying this account to HK. (or that's how his words seem to read anyway, until you read them over a few times and it's just an implication, not an assertion) Turns out there isn't. He just said that for dramatic effect, apparently. GWH blocked on behavioral, not CU, evidence. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not putting myself forward as a neutral party, you are. I suggested that you find someone who has no involvement, that's all. I don't see how I am pusing POV BillMasen (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He really implied there was CU evidence though. But, yeah, this account would have been blocked because of the multiple account abuse anyways, but we have no real evidence that this is Herschel, only suspicions. Sadly, there's no way to prove it one way or the other. Silver  seren C 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any incorrect statements. You are correct that, until biometric logging is activated, WP will never be able to absolutely prove that two accounts are operated by the same person. However there are a large number of ways, technical and behavioral, to identify likely socks. We just have to do the best we can against people who are dedicated to disrupting the project, in this case by skewing the coverage of a fringe movement.    Will Beback    talk    22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Skewing the coverage of a fringe movement"? I didn't notice this account violate any policy, including NPOV, in its editing, before it was blocked.  Besides operating an unauthorized alternate account, Will, can you point to any policy, with diffs, that this account violated?  The reason I'm asking this question is that you appear to be trying to justify this block on more than just the sockpuppeting.  Is that what you're doing? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you've made it clear that you have strong feelings about HK and his right to continue editing here despite his ban. The community has decided that using multiple accounts at once, as HK has done routinely, is unacceptable. You may disagree, but please don't disrupt the enforcement of longstanding Wikipedia policies.   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question, Will. What policy, besides socking, did the person(s) behind this account violate?  You appeared to be implying that there were other policy violations involved. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many new policy violations do you think are necessary in order to block sock of a banned editor?   Will Beback    talk    01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really strong behavioral evidence, that I'm not willing to discuss on-wiki as it would tip HK off to what we know about his signature. Delia was very closely tied to a known recent CU confirmed HK sock by behavioral evidence.  Months worth of it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Received and reviewed. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what George sent you, but I trust that you will not share it with anyone else, especially HK or those who might send it to HK.   Will Beback    talk    00:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have struck through this comment and apologize for questioning your integrity.   Will Beback    talk    23:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. So, then.... why did you say it? Well poisoning? Really, you ought to step away from this topic area, you're far too involved to be acting as an admin. Or passing judgments on others. Your POV colors your actions. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that confirmation. I wouldn't have asked if I weren't concerned. However I'd also ask you to not make unfounded allegations.   Will Beback    talk    01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no basis for concern, and you know it. Hence, you are the one making unfounded allegations, by insinuation. Thanks for confirming that you will use such tactics to win your point. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you deny posting to threads started by HK on WR in regard to the LaRouche articles? It is not absurd to believe that you are in touch with him, and that you agree with him on WP-related issues. You have generally taken his side in these discussions. HK has used his position on WR as a platform to attack Wikipedia editors and generate sympathy for his tireless socking efforts. It'd be helpful if you supported good faith Wikipedia editors rather than banned editors who won't stop violating Wikipedia policies.   Will Beback    talk    06:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, this personal feud between you and a banned editor is a violation of WP:BATTLE. It's also disruptive when you accuse, without evidence, any editor who disagrees with your behavior and methods as being in cahoots with your great white whale. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where have I made an incorrect accusation of an editor being a sock?    Will Beback    talk    07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (out) Starting to think this extended debate needs to be somewhere else. It's important we get to the bottom of Will's apparent paranoia and bad faith, but here probably isn't the place. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please leave your personal attacks for some other website. Wikipedia is not the place for them.   Will Beback    talk    12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That mischaracterization of my observations is itself symptomatic of your apparent bad faith and paranoia. You need to stop with the WP:BADSITES bogeyman. As I said, here is not the place, but I am becoming increasingly concerned at your intransigent approach. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lar and others know this already, but...
 * I am NOT a checkuser; where I'm stating that a CU was done, I'm relaying what I was told in an email by a checkuser, which identified accounts but not the IP addresses, locations, or other identifying information which is protected by the privacy policy. I didn't request the CU be run, but I was told of it and of the results.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)