Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lynctekrua/easyblock.js

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 SNOW delete The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also followed Origamite's suggestion of checking every page on [1]. All but one of them were part of the editor's unacceptable actions relating to the pages nominated here and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lynctekrua/afch-rewrite.js/submissions.js, and they amounted effectively to vandalism, so I have deleted them. The one exception (User:Lynctekrua/common.css) was nonsense, so I have deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G1. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lynctekrua/easyblock.js

A Javascript intended to ban (?) and block users. Its author would like to be thought of as an administrator, and I suppose that blocking people would be part of the act. Real-world admins don't need this, WP doesn't need fictitious admins, and if Lynctekrua would like to play around with Mediawiki possibilities then he's free to install Mediawiki on his own computer and play around with that.

Delete It is totally unhelpful to copy scripts like this, and this page has no purpose related to helping the project. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just the same as the AfC script, except that this one is more harmful. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Nothing more to say than the above. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem in principle in forking scripts to suit one's needs, but it needs to be done with proper attribution (there is no attribution on the page, disappointingly), and this script is a very, very silly fork. See compare User:Lynctekrua/easyblock.js to User:Animum/easyblock.js: aside from some whitespace changes, what the user did was a) remove attribution b) change "block to "BAN USER" for no reasons c) make it show for non-admins instead of admins. It should probably be speedily deleted as a copyright violation anyway. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is technically vandalism ie: a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent comment Could someone look at every page on here? I think most merit deletion. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has tried to masquerade as a sysop and this was one attempt to hack a tool that is only available to duly elected admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (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.