Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot10

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Withdrawn by operator.

Fbot10

Operator: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Time filed: 23:50, Tuesday December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently

Function overview: Will assist Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 10 at User:Fbot/Replace by removing processed requests.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 10

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Only 1

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): n/a

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: User:Fbot/Replace is fully protected (so that file swap requests can be made only by admins). This bot will remove processed/completed requests from the page. I'll need an sysop flag on this bot. The bot will only ever edit one page, User:Fbot/Replace.

Discussion

A better option would make the page end in either css or .js which does the same thing and enables the bot to operate without sysop access. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. Any reason the "Requests" section of User:Fbot/Replace couldn't simply transclude, say, User:Fbot/Replace.css, which the bot and admins could edit as needed? 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this on principle. Any bot with an admin flag must have publicly reviewable source. I also agree with Delta regarding the design. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support such a bot without the admin bit, placing the page on a .css or a .js page of the bot account; I oppose a bot being an admin bot just so that it can edit a single instruction page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Thanks for the input everyone. I was not aware js and css pages could be transcluded. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.