Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DavidLeighEllisBot 2


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

DavidLeighEllisBot 2
Operator:

Time filed: 15:17, Wednesday April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic after manual invocation of cfd.py

Programming language(s): Python pywikipediabot

Source code available: yes, cfd.py standard script, modified only to use User:DavidLeighEllis/CFDwerk.js instead of Categories for discussion/Working

Function overview: Effectuates CFD closures.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed.

Estimated number of pages affected: 200 pages/day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Changes/removes categories as needed to effectuate my closures of discussions at WP:CFD. While Cydebot, etc, already handle this task, they are controlled by Categories for discussion/Working, a fully protected page which I cannot edit. A request to reduce the protection level for this page to template protection was denied on the grounds that template protection shouldn't be used for non-template pages. The use of a javascript page in my userspace for bot control prevents vandals from tampering with the control page.

Discussion

 * Oppose I would prefer that this bot is not authorised. Category discussions affect a wide number of pages, and their effects are not easily reversed. The protection of WP:CFD/W has been in place for about 7 years, and the only adverse effect of it is that non-admins are unable to close CFDs which result in a renaming. This accords with the essay WP:NAC, which restricts non-admins to "clear keep outcomes".
 * I am sure that this request is well-intentioned, but is effectively an end-run around WP:NAC. If DavidLeighEllis wants to close CFDs with non-keep outcomes, he should apply for adminship at WP:RFA. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a note at WT:CFD pointing to this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed later that DavidLeighEllis did apply for adminship (see Requests for adminship/DavidLeighEllis). The application didn't go well. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose A bot should not be allowed to bypass non-admin closure restrictions. Philg88 ♦talk 07:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.