Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ark25/RefScript

 __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 to delete. If this script is in practice misused, there are other ways to deal with that. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ark25/RefScript


It could, conceivably, be used without violating WP:REFSPAM, but the author has specifically stated he is going to violate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, your move is like trying to ban knives and guns because some people might use them for nefarious purposes.
 * I think the main point that you want to make is that I'm a (potential) spammer. Ah well, you are not the first one. So let me wish you good luck in proving that.
 * Anyways, you have to prove that the links I provided are spam. I am not trying to promote or to make publicity to any person or company or any other third party. My actions have nothing to do with search engine optimization. I am adding links from any national newspaper that contain something useful. If the links I provide are spam, then the "Notes" sections of Wikipedia articles are also spam, because they quote a lot from national newspapers. I think the kind of links I added at Talk:Ghervazen Longher, Talk:Romeo Stavarache or Talk:Human tooth are not spam. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If those example are not enough, then I can think about a dozen more articles about Romanian politicians and I'll add external links into their talk pages, just to make your job easier.
 * The only purpose of this script is to make the life of Wikipedia editors easy. I think it's a pain to waste more than 1 second in order to generate a reference. It should be generated automatically and editors should not waste their times with such robotic actions.
 * However, those editors who used this script encouraged me to make more publicity to it. I already did that by noticing others at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_5 and I had no idea how to make more publicity to it. If I would have been a spammer, then I would probably think of some other ways ways, but I'm not a spammer. So I take your proposal for deletion as a good opportunity to make the script known to more people. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not only a potential spammer.  You have said you are going to spam, and that you have already spammed ro.Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:Spam: Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea;  - who am I promoting, if you please to answer my question?
 * 2. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't said that I posted spam. I said I posted into the talk pages external links that are useful for developing WP articles. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a small amount of synthesis, but that's allowable on talk pages. You said you have done something on ro.Wikipedia which was objected to (I can't read the language, so I can't say it is against their guidelines), and were planning to do the same on en.Wikipedia, and it (not that) is against our guidelines against spamming.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a small amount of synthesis, but that's allowable on talk pages. You said you have done something on ro.Wikipedia which was objected to (I can't read the language, so I can't say it is against their guidelines), and were planning to do the same on en.Wikipedia, and it (not that) is against our guidelines against spamming.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so there is no rule saying "don't use pages to encourage refspam", but RefScript is just a spam engine and should be removed. If anyone is interested in a topic and finds a couple of external links of interest, of course they can add a good-faith section to the talk page saying they are not able to use the material, but others might do some work with it. However, systematically putting anything on talk pages is most unhelpful, and systematically putting external links anywhere is extremely unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a link farm (or not yet, it isn't). Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This script can be indeed used manually by spammers but the purpose of this script is to make life easier to WP editors so they won't waste time for painstakingly format references. This gives me an idea: I'll ask how many times people add unreferenced information into articles because they don't have time to properly format references. The purpose of a link farm to exist is to create more revenue to a specific party. The collections of links I posted are just groups of useful references, same thing like the collection of references existing in any article's „Notes” section. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted my question at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This rationale is weak: by this standard, we should delete all scripts, because someone might misuse them.  Arthur and John were both participants in this discussion, which seems to be the main locus of the conflict.  In this dispute, REFSPAM has been strangely re-interpreted as including posting suggested sources (like newspaper articles) to talk pages, despite REFSPAM explicitly referring to articles (i.e., not talk pages).  Also, the deletion seems to be predicated on the belief that without the script, he'll stop posting links to newspaper articles that interest him.  I don't think that useful tools should be scrapped because one person might use them more often than someone else might prefer.  If you dislike his behavior, then address his behavior, not tools that anyone could use.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because he appears to have been prolific on ro.Wikipedia, he needs to be restricted now from doing what he (stated he) planned to do, until consensus is obtained that it is proper. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I can have the time to do this kind of things on English Wikipedia too. But I really don't have that much time. Romanian Wikipedia eats most of my time at the moment. Maybe in the future, who knows. I have added the links at Talk:Ghervazen Longher, Talk:Romeo Stavarache and Talk:Human tooth in order to suggest some useful information for those articles and to have some examples to come up with at the Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines discussion. On RO.WP, a group of editors are trying to find a reason to make me stop. They can't find a valid reason to do it. As a last resort, they invited me to go to the EN.WP and to do the same kind of external links posting, claiming "I will be executed instantly". So, in order to prove them that I'm not afraid about the "big boys" on EN.WP, that I have nothing to hide, and I would honestly try to defend my point in front of any investigation and accusation, I came here on EN.WP to ask your opinions. On a small Wikipedia is more or less relatively easy to game with the system and to do wikilawyering. But on EN.WP it's a very different story. If I'm gaming with the system, on EN.WP such thing will be proved relatively easy because there are many experienced editors who can detect it. My aim is to go back "home" on RO.WP and to prove to the people there that I have nothing to hide. The dispute at RO.WP took way too long (years), we should really come to a solution. I hope I don't sound arrogant, but the best thing you guys can do for me now is to try to get me blocked for this kind of actions. If it's needed, I can find some 10 or even 20 talk pages where to add some useful external links. The best way to prove that I'm not dishonest is to put my actions to the most serious and heavy test. If I will be blocked or not, that remains to be seen. Lots of shrugs and tension in the last weeks for me. But it will be a relief for me to have the dispute solved, one way or another. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , Your thread at WT:TPG was closed (not by me) as "you're wrong". Unless you want to reopen it or establish a new consensus, you have "lost" the "game" here (on en.Wikpedia), although, perhaps, my reasoning here (at this MfD) is defective, in that, if you're blocked, deletion may be unnecessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * : I am really not convinced by the consensus there because the statement of it being spam were not substantiated. I don't want to re-open the issue because it would be quite irritating: "you again?". In case that someone asks for me to be blocked, the issue will be inspected with much more attention. I hope I'll be put to the test one day, and, of course, I hope I'll pass the test. I'll look forward to add more such links to EN.WP articles talk pages, so I get to the test more sooner than later. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing: I have carefully mentioned here and elsewhere that an editor with an interest in a topic is welcome to put suggestions or helpful external links on article talk pages. No one needs a script to do that. At the other discussion, Ark25 specifically mentions the possibility of adding external links to 10,000 talk pages (or more). Further, just above Ark25 makes a statement including 'in order to prove them that I'm not afraid about the "big boys" on EN.WP' which shows that the editor is on a mission to add many external links to many pages. The worst outcome would be if they were dissuaded from putting links on talk pages, and instead added hastily-concocted "references" to articles. Of course editors are welcome to edit, but flitting from article to article in order to add links found in Google is very unlikely to be helpful because WP:UNDUE or misleading information would get incorporated into articles. There is enough trouble with editors competing with each other to see how quickly they can revert vandalism—there should not be a suggestion that rushing from article to article in order to add external links disguised as references would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggested that I might add to 100,000 pages, not 10,000. But helpful external links, not just any kind of external links. With the statement you quoted I wanted to say that I am not "brave" (as some might call me using irony) at RO.WP (because on a smaller Wikipedia is gaming with the system might be doable) and a coward at EN.WP. I wanted to say that I have no evil intentions, therefore I accept the "scary investigation" of the "big boys". Sorry if my wording sound arrogant - I didn't wanted to imply that I want to prove that I'm formidable or strong or any other such quality. Probably "scary" boys would have been a better wording. My mission is to add useful links to talk pages, in order to help development of articles. Sometimes (in fact, many, many times), that's also the only way to make sure the information they contain is not lost forever. Well, the worst outcome you talk about is impossible. No matter how hasty I make the references for articles, properly translating and adding the information from the references into articles is much more time consuming. There are articles based almost exclusively on Google links (national newspaper links), like celebrities and events. Those links are reliable sources when they report news. By the way, I rarely find the links on Google. Every day, I just open Adevărul, Evenimentul zilei, Gândul (the biggest 3 national newspapers) and a few more newspapers and I find a lot of useful information for WP articles. By the way, this is highly unusual and I really doubt there is anyone else like me on this planet and I'm not sure there will ever be in the next 200 or even 1000 years :). Now speaking about spam: In general, when someone pours a lot of things (in this case: external links) into something else (in this case WP articles' talkpages), their action is called spam. But: 1. If they promote someone's interests, then it's spam. 2. If they pour useless data without promoting anyone, that's abuse and disruption, although many times are improperly called spam. 3. If they pour goodies, then it's not spam and it's not abuse. It can be improperly called spam with goodies. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys aren't getting it: If adding information about potential sources to talk pages is (or becomes) a problem, then address that behavior.  Deleting the script won't stop him from doing this.  Here's what this conversation sounds like to me:
 * Ark: "I'm going to use this hammer to pound in some nails."
 * Arthur: "I don't want you to pound in a hundred thousand nails, so I'm taking away your hammer."
 * Ark: "No problem.  I can just use this rock instead."
 * A much more sensible conversation would sound something like this:
 * Ark: "I'm going to use this hammer to pound in some nails."
 * Arthur: "A dozen or two might be helpful—people post suggested sources on talk pages all the time—but if you post a thousand this month, then I'll block you for being disruptive."
 * (except that Arthur's probably too WP:INVOLVED now to be the one issuing a block). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a slight difference. It may be a defect in his English language skills, but I cannot read what he has said other than that he is going to pound in as many "nails" as he can (later, without violating the rules), and he had stated, (at least, at first) that he would not recognize the authority of en.Wikipedia, as he already does not recognize the authority of ro.Wikipedia.  Whether the stated intent and demonstrated ability to damage Wikipedia is sufficient for a block is still subject to debate.  I now tend to believe that this is not the correct forum for discussion, but, if he is blocked, then he would not be able to maintain the script, so it should be deleted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Useful nails, if I may say so :) . Also I forgot to mention something: once a link posted by me is used in the article as a reference, it can/should be deleted from the talk page, since the purpose of my posting was not to keep it into the talk page, but instead, to be used into the article one day. I haven't said that I won't recognize the authority of EN.WP. I said I'm not convinced by the consensus reached at WT:TPG. I didn't wanted to detail why is that, simply because I didn't wanted to make you angry. You seem to be a little bit too involved, to be honest, and I don't enjoy to "put gas on fire". But now I have to detail, since you said I don't recognize authority: I am not convinced by the result at WT:TPG because that really doesn't look like consensus to me. That looks more like a simple vote. Consensus is not a vote. For example, two valid arguments weigh more than ten invalid arguments. Consensus is marked by addressing legitimate concerns. Calling spam something that is not spam is not a legitimate concern. Yes, I don't recognize the objections at RO.WP because there were all kind of fancy accusations without base. There is quite a difference between (not) recognizing authority and (not) being convinced. You can respect an authority even if you are not convinced by it's reasoning. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Darn, my English again: When I said You seem to be a little bit too involved I meant it like you take this issue a bit too personally. I am not trying to make you stay out of this debate. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, there. I see nothing here other than your failure to recognize consensus there.  However, I'm beginning to think this is the wrong venue for discussion.  Perhaps the script shouldn't be deleted, but you should be prohibited from using it.  But that would be a matter for a different venue.  I am probably not going to continue to comment here; even though I did get a supporting Delete !vote with different reasons than mine, I am not convinced that deletion is the right thing to do.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2014 (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.