MORE JUSTIFICATIONS (yawn) QUOTE
Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors. The Burntsauce and Dannycali accounts are recent and public examples of that: both had borrowed disruptive tactics from JB196 , who is one of the site's most prolific and destructive sockpuppeteers (well over 500 socks) who had actually degraded a fair portion of the site's database in professional wrestling and pop culture areas.Not the most highbrow stuff, but his method of attack is theoretically applicable to any subject
A Kohs, by any other name, is still a Kohs. (Isnt this one of Greg's?)
She is so simple that she has to link any ban or block back to some other completely unrelated person.
QUOTE
Basically I've been working on tracking some long term sockpuppets that originate from a certain cluster of former editors.
Basically, this is why you make so many mistakes, D. You assume every person you dislike, or what-have-you is from the pool of longtime former editors. Fallacy.
QUOTE
Ryan, I respect your thoughtful response. However I disgree quite strongly with the supposition that there's no need for secrecy here. Nearly everyone who's seen my sock investigations agrees that some of the methodologies are sensitive and should be kept confidential,
Yes, I was most concerned that the wool sock not get outted as a false cashmere.
QUOTE
This site does have a problem with banned editors who engage in long term sockpuppetry. These people operate as a team and share strategies.
My God. Her abusive false accusations are more problematic and damaging to the project than any sockpuppetry. In fact, she raises the importance of sockpuppetry by running around chasing it like some kind of insane, maniacal Nancy Drew Wannabe.
QUOTE
My principal aim when I wrote them was to correct the problem and clear the air as swiftly as possible, once I confirmed the new evidence that had come to my attention. My goal was to minimize the harm I had inadvertently caused and to restore people's confidence. I was fielding quite a few queries at once and didn't want to keep anyone waiting.
No it wasn't. Your principal goal was to extricate yourself from the negative scrutiny of a group of people who could see that you were obviously abusing procedure, and probably attacking an(other) innocent person the process.
QUOTE
So the first apologies were sincere and simple.
They were smug and self-justifying. Recall how you clung to the factoid that the guy had a previous account. Because that made what you did right, including revealing his real identity to a group of people, and basically stalking him to get it in your own hands.
QUOTE
In comparison to other mistaken blocks that have occurred at this site, few administrators have been as swift in correcting their own error, as forthcoming with apologies, or as heavily criticized for the effort.
You weren't swift. You responded because you got attacked and realized you weren't going to get away with it. Your apologies were snide and limp, and you are anything but sorry. You deserve more, not less, criticism.
QUOTE
If there's something more I can do to set things right I'll readily do so, but full disclosure of my investigative techniques would cause far more harm than good. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your techniques cannot possibly be top secret military secrets. Are you accesing government databanks (which would be illegal?). Are you waterboarding rendered sock suspects in Afghanistan? Please, don't keep us in suspense.
This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: