Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jake Rahn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. The user's in question, both User:Jake Rahn and User:Jakerahn have not edited wikipedia in the interim, which suggests either vandalism, trolling or an attack page. Since the user in question is inactive, and Wikipedia is not a webhost, and given the consensus below, I have closed as delete. Hiding talk 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jake Rahn

Semi-obvious attack page. "spends much of his time playing sports poorly, ... walking in on his brother... he is really just a bumbling goof ball" There also isn't actually a User:Jake Rahn; this was created by User:Jakerahn. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it is quite possible this a good-natured newbie's attempt at self-deprecating humor. However, he has made a mistake in creating a userpage which does not correspond to his actual username. For clarity's sake, Delete, but I certainly hope the new user eventually gets around to answering nominator's question about this page. I don't think there is any bad-faith here. Xoloz 04:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's pretty unlikely that this is Jake writing about himself -- I try to assume good faith, but my credulity has limits :) If it's actually the same person, I'll rescind the nom once the page is moved to where it belongs, tho. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, on my userpage, I self-identify as a "monkey" who resembles Jabba the Hut, so I'm the self-mocking sort, and inclined to assume that behavior in others. That said, having read your wikipedia entry, I'm too scared to disagree with anything you say! :) Xoloz 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • guys cmon, obvioulsy i'm making a joke about myself. I tried to make a non-user page of myself but it was deleted. What should i do to put this page up, or is it illegal on wiki to make a funny, self-depricating page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakerahn (talk • contribs)
        • Move it to your actual user page (no space and only the first letter capitalized) instead of this page. Wikipedia pagenames are case-sensitive. This was different enough to appear to be an attempt to impersonate another user. Once you've moved the page, let us know so we can delete the automatically-created redirect. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
          • haha, what chaos! The page is alright, it was my friend just making an attack page. I think the page is pretty funny though and some of my friends agree so what the hell, just leave it up. ( p.s. thanks to all you who are looking out for others and keeping wikipedia great.) (Jake Rahn 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
            • As you wish :) Once everything's in its right place, I'll nix the nom. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not convinced anywhere on Wikipedia is the right place for this, at this point. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
              • in fact, is there anyway i could make this a non user page? (Jake Rahn 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC))
• (outdenting) You mean move this into the main article-space? No. Please see WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Articles about average people are functionally impossible to verify and are routinely deleted from the encyclopedia. Autobiographies are problematic for different reasons and are strongly discouraged regardless of the person. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move, created in the wrong place. Not mainspace material. Stifle 17:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (Yes, I know my vote couldn't count anyway.) Consider the fact that the account Jakerahn has been used for no other purpose than for perpetrating acts of vandalism. I suggest you look at this page and from there work your way through the successive newer edits of user 209.80.185.237 and those of Jakerahn (proving that it's obviously the same person attempting the same pathetic vandalism and suddenly realizing he needed to create an account in order to upload an image). User 209.80.185.237 has a heavy history of repeated vandalism. In addition to the blanking of pages, other random examples of his subtle handiwork include: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], among many others. It is quite unlikely that whoever uses the pseudonym Jakerahn would use his his real-life name for perpetrating his vandalism. Now, back to the discussion about userpage User:Jake Rahn. That page was created a first time on Feb. 12 2006 by Jakerahn. It was proposed for speedy deletion. It was then moved to the page User:Jakerahn by an administrator who (generously but mistakenly) assumed that he was dealing with a good-faith user. Circumvening the move, Jakerahn re-created the page User:Jake Rahn again on Feb. 13 2006. Lastly, an account Jake Rahn was created (in what has the appearances of a maneuvre to try to justify that userpage a posteriori). Note that earlier in the present discussion, Jakerahn wrote: "cmon, obvioulsy i'm making a joke about myself", and now Jake Rahn writes: "it was my friend just making an attack page". At this point, excuse me but my assumption of good faith is damaged beyond repair, and I agree with the person who wrote above: "I try to assume good faith, but my credulity has limits." In the worst and most likely scenario, what we have is one user who is a vandal, a liar, uses at least one sock puppet, and created an attack page. In the best scenario (for those who really want to wear rosy glasses), we have two users, one of which is a vandal, a liar, and has created a vanity page for the other. Either way, attack page or vanity page ("WP is not a webhosting service"), the material on that userpage has no business on Wikipedia. From the above discussion and from their track record, none of those two accounts demonstrate any interest in contributing constructively to Wikipedia. My suggestions: Block account of the proven vandal Jakerahn, Delete this image of a girl that he has taken on a website very likely in copyright violation, Verify if the account Jake Rahn is a sock puppet of Jakerahn, and in the affirmative block it, and seriously Consider blocking IP 209.80.185.237 (one of the IPs of Medfield school) on the grounds of its repeatedly being used for vandalism. 142.169.188.216 05:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did notice the slip-up in continuity in re. which account was the "friend" and which was "Jake". I do try to WP:AGF, but noting that ... oddity, is why I haven't retracted my nom. That said, you seem to know a lot about Wikipedia for an anonymous user; did you perhaps forget to login? Adrian Lamo ·· 08:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon User:142.169.188.216 makes a very well researched and articulate case. Noting that User:Jake Rahn has made zero contributions to Wikipedia except in this deletion discussion, I agree with deletion of this page. I'm not convinced that this rises yet to the level of blocking but these accounts should be added to the Vandalism Watch. Rossami (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2006 (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.