Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RM bot

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

Speedily Approved.

RM bot edit

Operator: Harej

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automated

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: User:RFC bot/requestedmoves.php

Function overview: Maintains Wikipedia:Requested moves and related pages.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This bot has been operating under consensus via User:RFC bot since May; the original discussion is available in this archive.

Edit period(s): Every thirty minutes

Estimated number of pages affected: Wikipedia:Requested moves/current, Wikipedia:Requested moves/current-oldstyle, Wikipedia:Coordination/Requested moves, and talk pages involved in the process.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): ~~No, but that's an oversight on my behalf. By the time the process is migrated to this account, such functionality shall be added. @harej 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Yes. @harej 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Function details: This account will take over what User:RFC bot has been doing with WP:RM since May, which is to primarily update the list of requested move discussions (e.g. here) and to cross-notify talk pages that are involved in multi-move requests (e.g. here). @harej 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

This process has had the consensus to operate, and has been operating successfully, for some time now. This BRFA is simply to shift the process to a different account. @harej 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC bot is yours also? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. @harej 07:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't see any possible issues in that case. If BAG members are concerned about anything the conversation is available. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be speedy approved IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me, also, to be an appropriate candidate for speedy approval, including trial if needed. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can remember how to close a BRFA...

Speedily Approved. (X! · talk) · @378 · 08:04, 29 November 2009 (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.