Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Transhumanist/QuickPortal.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: keep but blank. and both make good points that the code could be of value to future scripters, so I'm opting to keep but blank rather than outright delete. Xaos, since you're an interface editor and I'm not, can you do the honors? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js


This is the single click portal creation script. Here is a description of it. This script has not been approved by WP:BAG and has been used in contravention of WP:MEATBOT by several users. Records show portal creation at the rate of 5 per minute/every 12 seconds using this script. I can't tag the script page as I'm not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - admins can't edit it either. Ask to add the tag, or get an iadmin (maybe post at WP:IAN?) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I notified the creator, who would be the only person watching it anyway Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As the various discussions about the results have shown, this is not a good thing to have live. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt This should have never been made. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't appear to know what WP:SALT says and means. It pertains to objectionable page titles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As with the lists of vital articles which we recently decided to keep, the problem is inappropriate usage, not the tool.   We still have several important topics without portals, and last year's debate reached a consensus to keep the namespace.  A significant minority of editors disagreed, but that does not entitle them to make portal creation more difficult and error-prone.  Any witch hunt on tools also has a Streisand effect: I was previously unaware of this script, which looks very useful if used with care. Certes (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It you use this script without both an RFC and WP:BAG approval you may well find yourself blocked. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warning. I do not propose to use the script for the sort of mass page creation which might require approval. Certes (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just out of mild curiosity, what are some of the "several important topics without portals", given we have several thousand very minor topics with them? Of course, there are other ways of creating new portals if they are really needed, which I rather doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod, they're using a different definition of "important topic" to everyone else; to this particular tag-team, every topic listed at WP:VITAL is an "important topic" and needs a corresponding portal. When the shit hit the fan they were in the process of drawing up their to-do lists; you can see examples of them here or here. (Portal:Clitorises, anyone?) &#8209; Iridescent 14:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Shudder! Thanks, that explains it. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And to pre-empt any of them popping up claiming I'm misrepresenting them, here's the diff of Certes explicitly stating that their aim was for everything listed at WP:VA3 or higher to have its own portal. &#8209; Iridescent 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a diff of my opinion that level 3 portals are one possible outcome, which does not seem unreasonable, rather than my aim. I also agreed that the portals redlinked from Iridescent's other example are generally too detailed to merit a portal. I still feel that one could sensibly turn some of the redlinks here and here blue.  Yes, there are some narrow topics and overlaps that we can ridicule cheaply, but there are also several decent suggestions which could earn consensus for a portal.  Certes (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As a member of the Vital articles WikiProject, I am appalled that someone would use it to create an absurd number of portals. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Certes, your tag-team has created upwards of 4000 portals on narrow topics and overlaps that we can ridicule cheaply, unless you're seriously trying to tell me that Portal:Vengaboys, Portal:Zoophilia, Portal:Frigatebirds or Portal:John Pilger aren't a disruptive waste of space; this isn't some straw man we're constructing. Here's your own "random portal" button in case you think I'm cherry-picking examples. &#8209; Iridescent 17:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment promoting the one click portal creation script here without noting it needs BAG approval: User:Barbara_(WVS)/formatting_scrapbook Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Either delete outright or make it clear that anyone running the script will be instantly blocked. I can see valid grounds for keeping this so people can study the code used; I can see no legitimate grounds for anyone actually to  this script. &#8209; Iridescent 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment admission that between 1 and 2 minutes average of effort went into each page Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Depreciate per Iridescent - perhaps wrap the code in a  to disable it, while still allowing the code to be studied. I, for one, would like to take the time at somepoint to figure out exactly how this worked, and would want to test it (not on enwiki) out for myself. If, however, this is deleted, I'd like to request a copy of the code. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Export is only a click away. — xaosflux  Talk 22:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep - the actual code isn't an issue, its how it is utilized. The line that automatically saved the page was added in August Special:Diff/856673728, and was deactivated 10 days later Special:Diff/858154624. Since then, having looked through every change, I do not believe it has been reactived once. In its current form, the script is pretty harmless. I have made a copy of it at User:DannyS712 test/QP.js, and (without reading TTH's documentation) added comments explaining the result of each function. The only potentially controversial section, the one that actually "creates" the portals, is just 3 lines: select the edit window; replace the contend with ; and go to the preview window. The issue is not having a script that let a user easy preview the result of a repetitive edit, but rather the repetitive edit itself. That being said, if this page is deleted, I would expect an MfD to be filed for User:DannyS712/Redirectify.js, which sets or replaces the content of a page with a redirect - without creating a preview. If the line that automatically submits the page were reactivated, that would be a very different issue, but the root disagreement is (I believe) not with the script itself but with bpsp, which made the creation of new portals so simple. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pseudocode version also at User:DannyS712 test/QP - these pages should be deleted if this MfD closes as delete --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete End this portal mess. CoolSkittle  (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete so that we don’t have another mass portal creation mess. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt to prevent mass portal creation without BAG approval or prior community consensus. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think salting serves any purpose here: If The Transhumanist wishes to defy consensus and recreate this, he can always do so at a different title. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The salt would be symbolic, to indicate that the problem here is not the specific tool, but the use of any tool like this without community consensus. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was used without the required bot approval. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but blank it, replace with an javascript comment that it has been retired. This code could be useful for someone in the future and we generally give editors a wide berth for userspace experiments.  That being said, this script has shown to be disruptive, so should not be readily accessible for others to import and use.  Note to most of the 'delete' voters, I'm in no way endorsing that this should be used in any disruptive manner, but it could possibly be incorporated in to something for productive use in the future. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, not such a great idea to keep code around that shouldn't be used. The "restart portal" code is especially terrible, and has been used to replace working portals with poor quality nonsense. —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank per xaosflux. The code may be useful, perhaps to the Quantum Portal task force. If the code is useful to other editors, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have other ways to prevent or remedy any unauthorized use. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank per xaosflux, deletionism is not always useful. Someone may actually reuse the code for something interesting.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, don't blame a tool for its alleged misuse by specific individuals. Despite various hand-waving to the contrary, there is no consensus whatsoever on Wikipedia that using such a tool to set up a portal is against any rule or is any form of poor judgement.  Rather, the issue has been creation of portals that don't make much sense, which can and will happen regardless whether such a tool exists.  There isn't even a consensus against auto-created portals that don't and won't have much if any hand maintenance later, as long as they are setup reasonably well and are on a broad enough topic of encyclopedic interest for readers. There's presently an RfC drafting process under way, at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, that presumably will eventually ask the community for its input on this and related matters, but there's even been dispute about that draft RfC.  Anyone looking for a clear consensus on which to act regarding this tool, or portals made with it, or portals in general is very premature in their expectations.  I will even object to blanking the QuickPortal.js tool in the interim.  This MfD is simply a form of WP:FORUMSHOP. The nominator did not get what he wanted in the related WP:AN thread, and the RfC drafting process is slow, and many of the same party's MfDs against specific portals are not going as intended, so it's just yet another approach for going after The_Transhumanist and any portal-related material by this user.  The persistent and intensely personalized (mostly in one direction) dispute between these two editors looks like it needs to go to ArbCom, and is remarkably similar to WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, just about portals instead of infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank per the rationales of and  herein. North America1000 05:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – Recently, the bot policy has been changed so that BAG (Bot Approval Group) approval must be sought for the creation of more than 50 portals by semi-automatic means. See WP:MASSCREATION. As this script is semi-automatic, that policy now covers the use of this script beyond 50 uses. So, when a person does get BAG approval, it follows that they could use a tool like this. But, they can't use it, even with BAG approval, if it is gone.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No there is no change to bot policy, only a rewording to prevent your wikilawyering around breaching bot policy with this script that you described elsewhere as beyond semi-automated. I coild dig up diffs but you know what you called it. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no change to bot policy, but there has been a change to the documentation of bot policy. You unilaterally changed "article" (the actual policy) to "content page" (what you would like the policy to be).  Diffs:   . Certes (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summaries and talkpage discussion Certes. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No doubt I was using the word "automation" in some general sense, as all programs are an example of automation, even "semi-automated" ones. Every program automates something, but that is independent of WP's definition of "semi-automated". By the way, rewording = change. Though it looks like you missed the point, Legacypac. As it stands now, BAG approval would allow for the use of this script. Therefore, it should be kept, so that it could be used with BAG approval. Note, that it still doesn't require BAG approval for 50 portals or less. Another reason to keep.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank per AmericanAir88(talk)  02:45, 28 March 2019 (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.