Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs


Subpage that is being use in a makeshift 'checkuser'-type operation in an attempt to attach various IPs to a particular user that the page creator seems to have some sort of disagreement with. Could be a form of attack page. User account itself is likely a sock SPA. &#124; Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gathering evidence prior to a SPI I'm going to bring. Eyepeepeeeye (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I'm going to AGF that this new account was created by the IP editor based on the suggestion here . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an attack page, plain and simple. What's wrong with a piece of paper, or a spreadsheet in Lotus 1-2-3, or whatever? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. WP:USER states that The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Whilst long-term storage of this material would be problematic the subpage was only created today. Hut 8.5 18:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being per WP:USER. Tyrol5   [Talk]  22:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that there is a related thread (not to this MfD or Eyepeepeeeye, but to the underlying problem) currently on ANI. The underlying situation has also had significant press coverage. Based on the ANI discussion, I am not sure that an SSI case is necessary or is the best way to move this matter forward. I don't have a view on whether to keep or delete this page at this moment; this is all just background information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per Burpelson AFB and Hut 8.5. -- Klein zach  09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A blatant SPA sockpuppet compiling privacy-infringing data tables in public.  Do this off-line.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hut 8.5: this is a great example of compilation of factual evidence for preparing for a dispute resolution process. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are new (i.e. edited within the last 12 months) named accounts that are part of this analysis. The address ranges are too wide (i.e. several million across the whole of the UK) to result in any possible action and the edits date back several years with nothing in the last few months. Warning these IPs several years after the event is pointless and may put off new editors who just happen to log in from that IP address because they use BT or Virgin as an ISP. Action has already been taken with regard to COI and the related BLP articles have been carefully scrutinized and are being monitored. The interest in these edits has been stimulated because of off-wiki (i.e. press) interest, which seems a very poor rationale to keep this material on-wiki. If there is a new SPI to be raised, get on and raise it, I see no point in long term analysis unless it is part of a SPI case under discussion.
 * I agree with UM that as this analysis page has been created by an SPA with no other interest apart from raising accusations against an already indef blocked account (David r) and inflaming speculation against Johann Hari when no firm evidence has been brought forward despite several days of press reports to the contrary, this appears an attack page created by a non-legitimate sock account that happens to have chosen a name to match. Fæ (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being. The issue is still live. Set a date in a couple of months time to review again. I agree with what all the Keep messages have said about it being a compilation of factual evidence for a dispute resolution. IP records may clarify the issue of which accounts belong to the same person. Yonmei (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hut 8.5. To my knowledge, it is not forbidden to gather evidence in preparation for dispute resolution. -cc 09:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. With which other editor is User:Eyepeepeeeye in dispute here? And how could this synthetic "dispute" be resolved? The page may contain valid information about past editing related to another account, but that doesn't mean it isn't a coatrack. There is no particular reason why this information should be held here on our pages, and having it posted may exacerbate personal attacks here and elsewhere. So-called evidence gathering has had very bad effects in teh past on relationships between editors. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.