Sleazy Fork

Many reported scripts add or change the original script substantially so using the latter when redirecting them will only endlessly frustrate their users. I see it happens here and on many Chinese scripts.

I think the only case where redirection may be allowed is when there are no changes in code, @match, @exclude, @include, @exclude-match.

Maybe show a checkbox so the moderators can decide whether to redirect after comparing the diff. It'd be also nice if they can change the redirection for a deleted script without first undeleting it, then deleting again.

The reason for this behaviour was to "give" the original author the users so that

a) They get proper credit as far as update counts
b) The users do not get stuck on a never-updating script

I'm not sure I'd ever pick not to redirect if given the option...

I think they should be redirected to the original script

As an improvement there could be a message saying that the link was redirected,maybe even show what are the matches and excluded differences, or show a print of the main script page (the one that was deleted)

They get proper credit as far as update counts

This is false in case the reported script had substantially more functionality. This is a huge problem actually because the users attack the author of the original script and we moderators have to clean up the mess. This is simply unacceptable.

The users do not get stuck on a never-updating script

It's the opposite most of the time because the original scripts are often pretty old and abandoned.

I'm not sure I'd ever pick not to redirect if given the option...

The default should be not to redirect.

@JasonBarnabe if this isn't implemented, I'll have to write a userscript that deletes the reported scripts directly (with a link to the report as the reason) and clicks "fixed" on the reports because this just can't go on.

• The statistics of the reported script are added to the original script. The author of the reported script feels angry. Can the original script statistics can be recovered?
• When users of the reported script update the script, the script is replaced by the original script. Users feel angry. Can the update function be restored to its original state?

These two things are unfair, and there is no benefit to the author of the reported script and his users. The website should stop doing these things and stop redirecting.

Scripts aren't deleted unless they had a real reason to be deleted, the author wouldn't claim his copyright rights unless he is still active on greasyfork and most likely updating his script.

redirecting
Getting stats from the other deleted script
Get the script replaced with the original or not

They could all be optional both for the user and for the author, that way everyone here would be happy.

I would like to be redirected to the original script, but I wouldn't like to have the deleted script on my tampermonkey extension replaced out of nowhere with the original version.

Being redirected allow users to know what are the differences, and even make their own script modifications in the future if they want and know how to code too.
Not being redirected gives the feeling that it's gone forever and ever and we can just try to live without that script that could be very important for some users, thinking about this makes me want to be redirected to the most similar script, that would be the author original script.

@hacker09, you seem to have ignored the cases I mentioned where redirection is objectively bad and serves no benefit for no one. These cases are important enough to introduce the option. This is what this topic is about.

Ah, sorry, this part of your message pertains to the topic as far as I can understand:

I wouldn't like to have the deleted script on my tampermonkey extension replaced out of nowhere with the original version.

Yes, this is what I protest against.

@wOxxOm

No, that's exactly what I'm saying all the time, make everything optional. Doesn't matter if the choice will be good or bad, it was the user/author choice, so this person can't complain later.

You and JasonBarnabe are correct depending on the case and point of view, so if we just make everything optional, then both of you will keep being correct anyways.

So I wrote the script as I promised and I'm already using it when the reported script's functionality is substantially different. Here's hoping the arguments above are convincing enough to warrant a native option though.

The statistics of the reported script are added to the original script. [...] Can the original script statistics can be recovered?

This is based on a misunderstanding of what's happening. The stats don't get moved or removed, but all the users will get updated to the other script, which will inflate its update check stats.

The author of the reported script feels angry.

This doesn't ever happen if the "author" of the reported script didn't copy the other script without permission. I'm not concerned with this "author"'s feelings.

The original intention here was for when an active author got one of their scripts duplicated, without adding anything of value. In this case it makes total sense to me for all the users to go over to the original as that will be the updated version.

I can see that there's a case where the person who copied the script without permission added significant functionality, gained a significant number of users, then got reported. It's confusing for users to get the other script in this case, so I'll add the option to not do the redirect. I believe the prior case represents the majority of cases, but this one is not insignificant.

Note that I consider "attacks" on an author to be a bannable offense.

I believe the prior case represents the majority of cases, but this one is not insignificant.

FWIW, my statistics is ~50% after handling 100 or 200 scripts over past few days. It's skewed though since the time frame is so small.

For example, quite a few unauthorized scripts only change @match or @include like this one. I delete them without linking, too.

I've added the option for mods when resolving a report involving unauthorized code:

a) Users keep the code, script page 404s (default)
b) Users get updated to the original script, script page redirects to original script