Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/meganuke.js

 __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: delete. SNOW closing as delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/meganuke.js


Identified at WP:AN and apparently at Wikipediocracy, this is a script which allows a user to roll back another user's contributions, and then monitor that user's contributions to automatically roll back back any subsequent edits. A user must have rollback permissions to use the script, and I believe that it was created in good faith, but it seems to me that the potential for this to be used harmfully (such as to automatically perpetuate an edit war, or for a targeted user to cause havoc) is too great. In effect, this allows any editor granted rollback permission to set an unsanctioned bot against another user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not an interface admin and can't tag the .js page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if tagging the documentation page might be an acceptable workaround, since you can’t edit the .js page. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, tagging a .js page might have unexpected consequences, so I'll just leave it be. I should have included the doc page in this nom though, maybe I should do that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per my comment at AN, unless and until there's a change in the bot policy to allow this—which would require a full RFC as it would be a major cultural change—I'll treat anyone I see running this script as I would any other operator of an unauthorised bot. &#8209; Iridescent 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete yeah, good intentions and all, but it is effectively an unauthorized bot, and given that we just had a recent spate of compromises, the restricting it too rollbackers isn't exactly the most helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn’t exactly fall under WP:MEATBOT if the script is using the API to monitor contributions and automatically revert. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that this script effectively BLOCKs a user from page edits (per the doc) is way too dangerous for non-admins to have access to. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - that's utterly brilliant, but not appropriate as too prone to (likely accidental) abuse. Not allowed by bot policy.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree: well done, but not appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only is it essentially an unauthorized bot, its actions make it an unauthorized adminbot. To be honest, I would oppose its use if proposed as an adminbot, because it appears to be able to auto-revert IP addresses, many of which have very short rotations. Risker (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: added the script's documentation page, which would be a G8 delete anyway if the script is deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty much a non-admin block, and although I'd be in favor of unbundling the block permission, I think it's a bad idea to let any rollbacker (what's often the first manually given user right that users get) use this. SemiHypercube ✎ 20:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, at least pending discussion and consensus to enable it somewhere. I can kind of imagine being OK with this (i.e. I'd need to think some, but not definitely against it) for rollbackers if there were significantly more safety features built in, and if the dire consequences (edit warring block, rollback removal) were made clear.  It is functionally equivalent to unbundling the block tool, and the last time that was tried, there wasn't consensus for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly the intent was to be helpful, but this script runs afoul of our bot policies and would require significant discussion and vetting in order to be viable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - De facto blocking script, sure to generate unintended consequences aplenty. There needs to be a thorough community discussion before a tool of this power is implemented, and strict written policy established for its use, if accepted. Carrite (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Script allows people with rollback rights to go rogue. This tool is far too destructive. talk to ! dave 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all of the above. Unauthorised bot flooding recent changes, misuse potential causing enormous damage, use by bumbling incompetents causing enormous damage. Nick (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (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.