Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep for now, since there is an active SPI that references the material on the nominated page. However, I would encourage courtesy blanking the page once the SPI is over, lest it come back to MFD for a third round. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs[edit]

User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs

No longer needed for an 'SPI' or anything similar, this page now serves no useful purpose. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. David R from Meth Productions, now self-admitted to be Johann Hari, used multiple sockpuppets besides the "DaveR"/"David Rose" handle. Surely it's embarrassing enough for Wikipedia that its own policies allowed Johann Hari to use it for over five years to self-aggrandise himself and to attack people he'd had a dispute with? His other sockpuppets also need to be detected and banned. There is little evidence that Hari realises the seriousness of what he'd been doing - he has not apologised to any of his known victims - and no reason to suppose that he won't be back. Yonmei (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the RL identity of the user is known, it is not appropriate for WP to make available sensitive personal data such as login history. Surely it is against WP rules to make public the results of checkuser searches? Shouldn't User:Eyepeepeeeye but made subject to SPI? --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, close enough to G10 (attack page) and U2 (Nonexistent user - user few edits other than this page, all about David R) - Nabla (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's no solid reason to believe that David will never return: he's been editing for over six years, and the most recent entry was just a few months ago. Documentation of violations of policy is not an attack, and U2 is strictly for when the username has never been registered. FormerIP's statements are wholly wrong: there's no good reason to subject Eyepeepeeeye to an SPI, and there's no evidence that this page contains privileged information — Eyepeepeeeye has never been a Checkuser, a Steward, or a Founder (they're the only people who can see IP addresses for logged-in users), and it would be absurd to suggest that any of those people would provide this information to Eyepeepeeeye. Moreover, read the outing policy — the only reason we sanction the posting of personal information is if the information has not previously been published. This table is composed of evidence from David's own writing (example, where the IP signed as David R), and there's no way that the outing policy prohibits quoting information revealed by the person to whom that information pertains. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any one, say PersonA, may write in here using an IP and sign as anything, say UserX. It does not mean - at all - that PersonA is UserX. Actually PersonA may be impersonating UserX and then collect information about that, and post it as UserA to attack UserX. You can not tell if such information is correct. We should delete any personal information that is (or was) not unquestionably (first) published by the involved person. Othewise a delete vote is a flag to assert that data is probably reliable while keep votes assert data is not. We do not want to give hints, so we must delete personal information always. Actually I presume that is the spirit of "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information" as stated in the reference you gave. - Nabla (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument rests upon a crucial error: the prohibitions of the outing policy are dependent on the information being revealed by someone other than the party whose personal information it is. To take a random example, are you going to attempt to apply your words to the following sentence? "Orangemike's real name is Michael James Lowrey". I have derived that information from what he writes on his userpage. This information is not taken from a userpage, but it's all drawn from information that's publicly recorded in page histories: David published this information by adding his signature while editing under these IPs. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really don't see this as being any different than a "suspected sockpuppets of foo" category, so on its face I think the claim this borders on G10 is ridiculous. That said, I can't decide if this is worth keeping without more information on its purpose. Resolute 13:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it should be moved to a more suitable location, for example an LTA page, or to a subpage of the banned account and then linked to the main account userpage and the list of banned users page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons given by Nyttend. If we are to enforce the community ban against David r, we need to keep track of the behaviour of said user. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note: tracking the IP addresses of a specific user to ensure that they do not violate a ban is generally something that functionaries do, rather than the community at large. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indefinitely storing in public the IP addresses is coming close to harassment. The IP addresses are location revealing data that should not be kept indefinitely. We respect the privacy of all past, current and future contributors, even if they have had trouble with policy. If there is a pattern of use of these IPs, then yes, but once the information becomes old, no. In any case, user-tracking data does not belong in someone’s userspace, and certainly not in the userspace of a three-day SPA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's location-revealing data that was revealed by the banned user in question: it's already stored in public article histories. You're going to have to delete the edits in question in order to prevent them from being indefinitely visible. Moreover, this kind of thing is normally tracked by functionaries because most sockers are smart enough to use usernames, rather than editing under their IPs — unlike most sockers, David has made his own IPs visible to the world rather than only to those who have special technical rights. Data revealed by Checkusers should only be visible to Checkusers, but data revealed by its owner should be visible to everyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is already public. No offensive OUTING is alleged here. No, we wouldn’t without go hiding IP data in histories without a good reason. The problem is the collection of information about another user in an obscure userspace location. I wouldn’t object to this information being collected and stored in a more properly supervised location.
  • In general terms, I don’t think this is an acceptable use of userspace. Individual users should not collect and keep information on other users in their userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse. This is the main point. What is missing is any supposed useful purpose for this information that outweighs the clear privacy concern. --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since there is now a SPI request open on this subject at the moment, the comment "this page now serves no useful purpose" seems to have been invalidated? This issue is still alive: shouldn't any relevant information be kept available? almost-instinct 22:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what purpose? Checkusers already have access to the same data. This content helps them in no way. --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the purpose of this page. Johann Hari as David R made as many IP edits as he did signed-in ones. As an IP, he switched IPs many times. It is necessary therefore to collate these in order to track the behavioural patterns that allow him and his other socks to be identified when he pops up as an IP. There's no other way of tallying them other than by their IPs. He didn't just edit as 'david' from IPs either - he also IP edited but manually signed as 'Jess', 'AngelaM', 'Nick' and a load of others to be found in the Johann Hari talk page archives. This page allows their contirbutions to be seen side-by-side and is a valuable piece of evidence in identifying otherwise anonymous (and possibly libellous, bearing in mind Hari's contributions as davidr) edits to Wikipedia.86.133.51.17 (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tom Morris et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/David r from meth productions per SmokeyJoe. That's the best reasoned option given above. --Kleinzach 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tom Morris et al and my comment/reply to User:FormerIP above.86.133.51.17 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the SPI. This information is useful to help identify further sockpuppets if they arise, by being able to look at similarities of behaviour. None of it is particularly hard to find so I don't really see it as a big privacy issue. Polequant (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or delete This user page has been created by a SPA just to do this analysis. Why is the account anonymous? I asked this question and expected an answer that could meet the legitimate sock policy over 2 months ago. Arguments that the information is useful is not a reason to overlook this sock puppetry issue. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138549751"