Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous

Terrible ending
It's been hard for me to sort out what has exactly happened, so describing this comes with a great difficulty to me at this time. IHA was a rather troubled person. They had shared a lot of private information (which I found to be credible) with me which is why I was pretty stubborn about their status as a sockpuppet. IHA, sock or not, had a whole life story that was pretty detailed and consistent.

Throughout this process, IHA has received a lot of offwiki harassment and targeting. The end result has been that (A) I've had to contact emergency@wikimedia.org following a particularly severe incident and (B) IHA claims to have no interest in further engaging with Wikipedia and its processes. I tried to be supportive to them during this all, but very abruptly IHA stopped responding to me in a way I found rather alarming.

I don't want people getting into an argument when the underlying result will practically be pointless. My only request is that IHA's contributions to project discussions be allowed to stand as they were until T&S has a chance to fully investigate. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and of course, I say that and immediately an SPA comes out of nowhere just to strike all of IHA's contributions. I literally can't make this stuff up.. } &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MJL: if you don't mind me asking, did IHA communicate to you they are no longer interested in engaging with WP before or after their most recent unblock request? Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , asking to reveal the details of private communications is not OK. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an outstanding unblock request that can be safely closed if the editor requesting unblock has abandoned their account. Asking for a relative date at which a communication to that effect occurred is a perfectly acceptable bookkeeping inquiry, and the editor in possession of that information has no obligation to disclose this purely incidental information in any case. If you still feel this is unacceptable, you are welcome to propose the introduction of a new policy or guideline proscribing it at the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Chetsford (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm well-aware that there is no consensus on policy to that effect. In WP:EMAILPOST arbocom is quoted as saying that the "contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". So don't ask to do that then. Vexations (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vexations - I note your concern. I am certain your concern is misplaced since the relative date on which an email was sent (i.e. before or after "X" date) does not constitute "the contents" of that email. For that reason, I have decided not to take any action in response to your concern, or to the request that accompanied it. However, please be assured that I have carefully considered it and I do appreciate your willingness in communicating it to me. Chetsford (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine to answer that. It was after the most recent unblock request. Once I made this comment, I got in touch with them about the most recent allegations. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MJL - understand, thank you very much! I'm sorry for what you've had to go through on this. You are to be congratulated for your willingness to mentor new editors and, while this one may not have worked out exactly, I hope this experience doesn't discourage you from continuing to do this important work. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean... I probably won't adopt someone again for a while. At least until I can think about what happened to IHA without almost crying.. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MJL - you deserve a holiday, however, I hope it's only a short one. Without the efforts of you, and editors like you, we would hemorrhage productive editors at an unsustainable rate. I hope you don't hesitate to let me know of any assistance I can provide. Chetsford (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted my earlier post-close WP:SOCKSTRIKEs from RfCs IHA had commented. I'm not going to edit-war over that, but I don't believe sockpuppets should be allowed to influence RfCs. With all due respect, what you or me as individuals believe to be true won't decide the outcome of a SPI. The SPA doing the tagging was inappropriate, and for some reason he also struck comments by people IHA had replied to as well. And again, it might be an insipid thing to say when emotions are running high, but editors who are evading blocks might tell untruths. Either way, this is a difficult situation and you have my sympathy. This SPI was a mess due to back-and-forth comments and unusual intensity. It even makes me question whether SPI is a workable format because public accusations are harmful, but sometimes they have to be made to protect Wikipedia from socking. In the past, I have opened some high profile behavior-only SPIs like Cirt/Sagecandor, but thankfully there was not any drama. --Pudeo (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying; I really do. I hate being "that user" who says this, but SOCKSTRIKE is an essay. [It probably shouldn't be! But it still is..] Regardless, I think that we should just let an uninvolved SPI clerk make that call or not (even if I hope they'll take my desires into account). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@, @ and others: This section should be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous/Archive as well, shouldn't it? I'm not sure. I don't know much about the conventions in this area, so I'm not going to move it. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Beats me; Ask . &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You got me. I have no idea what the procedure is for SPI talk pages, they're used so rarely anyway. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)