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  Approved.

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:20, Saturday, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove transclusions of ((Blocked user)) (and transclusion of templates that redirect to it)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Blocked user

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: <3663

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Remove transclusions of a template that is being deleted. Currently has 3663 transclusions. See also task 22 and task 23, which also removed transclusions of templates that were being deleted.

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. As usual, take all the time you need in completing this trial and report back here when done DannyS712. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Trial complete. 51 edits made (sorry) - [1]. I didn't see anything go wrong, but a clarification question: I'd like this also to apply to the redirects to ((Blocked user)). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to add in the redirects and update the task information above accordingly/as appropriate, DannyS712. Once the redirects are added, we could go ahead with an extended trial. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I mean the transclusions are the same, and the only difference is replacing "blocked user" with "blockeduser", etc, so I'm not sure an extended trial is needed, but I've updated the description. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712:. For the sake of completeness and realistically I will most likely be breaking by own "rule" of not making the final call on things I trial due to aforementioned circumstances of the lack of BAG activity and the backlog as of late, I would honestly prefer an extended trial of at least 25 edits. Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Trial complete. 26 edits made (sorry) - [2] I didn't see anything go wrong. This task is limited to only the user and user talk namespaces. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Under normal circumstances, I would prefer to leave the close for someone else. However, given the backlog, lack of recent BAG activity (myself included), and the fact that this task is uncontroversial and based on how well the trial went, I am inclined to make an exception for this. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:40, 27 April 2019 (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.