On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 05:41:21PM -0500, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>at>:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael
Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> No, the only people who need to fear that are
the *already banned*
> abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost
> daily basis.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding
those socks?
In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other
methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor.
Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of
"witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make
decisions.
Are you saying that you don't trust the people we have doing checkuser?
Or that
you don't trust Durova and others who are good at picking up subtle signals of
socks? The first case, my response is going to be close to "well, too bad. The
rest of the community trusts them. If you disagree you need a good
reason"- the
second case simply doesn't hold water because Durova, Guy and others
are always willing to email trusted users their evidence.
What are those "other methods"? According to WP:SOCK
"similarities in interests and editing style" might help
to detect sockpuppets. If this is the case, how can we
make sure, that we do not block different editors,
who happen to share the same POV? Does it matter at all
since we might call them as well meatpuppets?
How do we prevent admins from blocking not a vandal
but a certain POV?
--
Raphael