User talk:Nowearskirts

In my opinion even though there may be some limited discussion about who you may be at ANI, it's a mistake for you to respond with counter evidence. The SPI is deleted. If there is any case to answer it sounds like it will be dealt with offwiki for now. If you are blocked your are free to engage with arbcom off wiki or potentially they will question you first via e-mail. If not there's nothing really to answer and but by you responding it means the evidence and alleged connection may become a point of discussion. I don't think this is helpful if you are not who it has been suggested you are even if it may seem a little unfair the allegation is out there but you can't respond. Last I checked no one had responded to your post so IMO you are free to delete it. If the SPI is undeleted or a new one opened you can respond there. ANI is not the best place to discuss complicated sock cases anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Are you aware that some "evidence" has been posted here (and is still visible)? Also, searching at ANI for "behavioral evidence presented here is compelling" shows where another editor linked to the post. Given that, I think it is reasonable for Nowearskirts to reply there. I looked at the post earlier and couldn't make sense of it (it shows two editors each of whom is capable of TLDR posts—nothing new there). I think the claim is inappropriate (without a clear explanation of what we're supposed to see) and I would be happy if it were rev-deleted if you felt inclined. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-relevant reason why my comment would be rev-delled? I am not aware of any relevant policy; it is pretty much a non-standard DUCK observation. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Sorry I was on my phone so was maybe a bit briefer than I'd normally be. I'm aware of the link and the claim it is compelling and I understand the the desire to reply and not questioning the right to do so. If I were a dictator who could force compliance, I'd delete the whole ANI thread, and all discussion of evidence and leave it up to arbcom. (Although frankly even if I were this just seems a good way to ensure there's a lot of discussion public but off-site which I'm not sure is really better.)

But a problem as I see it is sort of exemplified by Newimpartial comment, as it all on-wiki evidence, and a number of respected editors feel it's something okay to discuss and I'm not sure there's a clear policy violation. Trying to remove stuff from on high seems likely to just mean the Streisand effect and more effective discussion of the issue. In truth I see no good solution so I'm just offering a suggestion I hope reduces the possible impact and likelihood of IMO unwelcome discussion.

People can blame arbcom or whoever else for how we got here, and I am hoping everyone involved will consider if they could have handled things different. But people have different views on how things should be handled. I've explained my view at ANI such as it is, hoping to be at least part of the spark which may change someone's mind but as with a lot of things, I'm not sure how many people are likely to change their minds whatever happens. I didn't see much chance Newimpartial or the editor who linked the post would change their mind at least in the short term, and it seems even less likely the editor who opened the SPI will.

But since I feel there's a risk that despite the SPI now being deleted, discussing shortcomings in alleged evidence is just going to lead to back and forths of further evidence or responses to the shortcomings i.e. a mini SPI and it will be hard to shut down since it is just a series of responses. By comparison, if someone just start presenting more evidence unprompted it's easier to shut that down as "this isn't SPI". You could try the same if back and forths develop but that seems more likely to lead to disputes than if you just say "you're wrong, but this isn't the place to discuss it so I won't". If Nowearskirts doesn't agree, so be it. Either way, hopefully that ANI thread peters out or is successfully closed.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said repeatedly, I don't have a theory of the case; what I do have is a cautiously developed and sincere view that many editors and administrators on "both sides" are making unfounded assumptions within their personal blind spots, and believe they know much more about the case than they actually do. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I see what you mean and certainly I would strongly advise that anyone planning to continue the "discussion" should stop.

@Newimpartial: You posted a comment that strongly implied the two provided links demonstrated a sock connection. I tried to make sense of that but completely failed. Your post was worse than an aspersion because at least an aspersion is seen to be evidence-free. However, posting links to complex comments with no clue of what they are supposed to show will be taken by conspiracy theorists as strong evidence whereas it was in fact unsubstantiated blather. If you have evidence, forward it to Arbcom. Otherwise, do not post anything. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case my own comment was overly terse, Aquillion has parsed the situation I was describing accurately IMO and without unfounded aspersion. I defer to their analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]