On Nov 30, 2007 8:21 AM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 07:11 -0500, Guy Chapman aka JzG
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:05:47 -0500, "The
I'm looking at the "sooper seekret"
message (as it appears on
Wikitruth), and I see a list of signs that one is dealing with a
troll/sockpuppet, generally in the form of "new people don't act this
way." !! was held to fulfill every one of them, and yet the
identification turned out to be faulty.
No it didn't - !! *is* a returning user.
But Durova wasn't simply giving a cookbook in the identification of a
returning user (even there, it might not be a false positive here, we
already have argument in the rest of unquoted part of the post as to how
it could easily provide false positive). The sooper seekret evidence
starts off in the first paragraph indicating the following example was
one of a returning WR-related troll/abuser.
The evidence that it was a returning editor was correct; the evidence
that it was WR-related was not.
Please remember this thread started with the message by The Mangoe about
the circumstantial arguments that were used to justify sockpuppetry
blocks, not whether it correctly or not identify someone as a returning
user (in good standing or otherwise).
And how does the fact that Durova incorrectly identified !! as a WR
editor "demolish all of the circumstantial arguments made to justify
sockpuppetry blocks."? To use an analogy, if the courts were to
incorrectly convict an individual on circumstantial evidence, would
that mean *all* such convictions were incorrect? And, by the way,
almost all criminal convictions involve circumstantial evidence.