On Nov 30, 2007 8:21 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 07:11 -0500, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:05:47 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
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.