> >>> 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
******
Raphael, by all means add my name to the Eyrian case and submit evidence
against me if you have any at all. Otherwise, kindly extend assumption that
I act in good faith and that the people who scrutinize my actions are
competent.
More than 90% of the information I use to build a case is already public
information, available to anyone on the Internet with the smarts and
patience to find it. Nobody handed these investigative techniques over on a
silver platter, no website discloses all its methods for countering hacking
and abuse, and nobody appointed you to judge me. That's arbcom's function.
What you are asking for is a rather large favor and you are asking in
entirely the wrong tone.
-Durova