Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rfambot 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 keep vote.svg Approved.

Rfambot 2
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted:

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: email me

Function overview: See User:Rfambot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Jennifer_Rfm

Edit period(s): approximately bi-annually

Estimated number of pages affected: A specified list of approximately 600 pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Assert Edit flags used (exists, user/bot, none): none

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

Function details: See User:Rfambot

Discussion
I intended to leave this open for at least a week to give editors a chance to evaluate the new operator; I don't think they'll be any objection to the continuing functioning of the bot. Josh Parris 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks Josh.--Paul (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with this. Old operator agrees to change, new operator appears to know what they're doing. Just my 2¢. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Second Earwig, I give a thumbs up for trial Josh. Tim1357 (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * K, its been a week. . Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim, I don't think a trial is appropriate. The application is essentially to hand over operational responsibility.  There's been no change to the code, nor task.  And it hasn't been a week. Josh Parris 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing that a trial is not necessary. This is the same code, right? The actual execution of the bot probably won't be problematic; it's the operator that this BRFA is really about. At any rate, Josh, do you think we can approve this relatively soon? It's almost been a week (in a few hours, literally), and besides the few BAG members who have bothered to look at this, nobody has commented. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, the code hasn't changed. Other than dropping in the exclusion compliance.--Paul (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems the opposition has been convincingly out-argued. Please place a note on the bot's user page about the change in operator. Josh Parris 11:40, 21 March 2010 (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.