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
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: DavidLeighEllis (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 edit
- 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#Appropriate_closures, 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#Appropriate_closures. If DavidLeighEllis wants to close CFDs with non-keep outcomes, he should apply for adminship at WP:RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have left a note at WT:CFD pointing to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed later that DavidLeighEllis did apply for adminship (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DavidLeighEllis). The application didn't go well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have left a note at WT:CFD pointing to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 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.