Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway

Comments moved from project page
<<< As I have said elsewhere, there were over 200 votes at that RFA which I scanned, and we were under time pressure. Checkuser is a tool for distinguishing socks from legitimate accounts that look like socks. As I went through the list I compiled information and requested help from checkuser. All of my requests were accepted as reasonable use of the checkuser tool, and a high percentage, but not all, of the accounts checked turned out to be socks. Your account was not a sock, and I am sorry for any stress I caused you. I have looked at these events in retrospect, and would do things a bit differently next time in order to avoid stressing people needlessly. In particular, I would mainly bring concerns to WP:RFCU, WP:SSP and WP:BN, and try to minimize comments at the RFA. Happy editing, Jehochman Talk 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just this little reminder as we go a-fishin' (from WP:RCU): "Vote fraud, ongoing vote - Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Suspected sock puppets" --Justallofthem (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it that cops say? "Well if you've nothing to hide then you won't mind if I search your house." And what is it that the wise man said? "Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the strict observance of fools. And the total ignoring of by those that care little for the rights of others." --Justallofthem (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I made up that last bit. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering is not welcome on this page. On Wikipedia, policy follows practice, not the other way around.  If disruptive sock puppets appear, there is no requirement to wait.  Jehochman Talk 14:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are one of those that feels free to ignore the rules that protect peoples' privacy when it suits you? Interesting. Why not go over to the main RFCU page and remove those pesky suggestions. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I filed a report. Lo and behold, all of the accounts initially (added) listed were confirmed as socks.  There is no expectation of privacy for those who engage in wrongdoing on Wikipedia. Requests for adminship is about a person.  Disruption there is much more serious than at articles for deletion.  If an article is falsely deleted, that can easily be reversed.  If an RFA is poisoned, that often cannot be fixed. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ALL of the accounts????? Hello? When you wrote this, 'Troikoalogo, Gray62' was already on the list. And we were found to be innocent, remember? Grrr. Gray62 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was made before checkuser results were available on the additional accounts. Check the timestamps. Jehochman Talk 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point! You wrote the accounts "were confirmed as socks", BEFORE "checkuser results were available". YES, I checked the timestamps, and it's obvious you made a prejudicial verdict here. Now, really, Jehochman, you're doing an important job by eliminating the puppet players, but you have to be more careful about your statements. Or do you think falsely accusating editors, making it sound as if they are already convicted, is no big deal? I hope not. More discretion in the future, pls, and less jumping to premature conclusions. And it would be really nice if you would avow yourself to the mistakes you make, instead of defending them up to the point where it becomes a farce. Gray62 (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx, Jehochman, this adresses my concerns. We all should take care of not letting RfAs beconing a witchhunt. At the same time, socks should have no place at RfA. So, keep up the good work at RfCU! Gray62 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)