Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for Bot Approvals Group membership. Please do not modify it.

After following the standard review period, and gaining the endorsements of other editors and BAG members, HighInBC has been added to the Bot Approvals Group. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: HighInBC

HighInBC (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Hello I am HighInBC. I have been an administrator since November 2006(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2). I wrote, got approval for and started running User:HBC AIV helperbot in January 2007(Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot). This bot has been operated continuously since then by me and several other accounts/operators for redundancy. Together they have made over 425,000 productive edits.

A more recent bot I wrote was User:EgressBot which helped in the OrangeMoody case by blocking many accounts quickly. I have done several other small bots.

I have worked in the software development field for over 20 years and have worked for major companies including Amazon. Computers have been my hobby since I was 9.

In January of 2007 I requested to join the Bot Approvals Group[1] but due to an unclear consensus I withdrew my request. At the time I was told there was a good number of members already. Now that Xaosflux has made a "shameless plug" for experienced bot operators and/or administrators I felt I should offer my services once again.

I acknowledge that I have not been very involved at BAG other than some work there early on. I am happy to start slow and learn from others. If it turns out my lack of recent participation is a concern then I will be happy to contribute as a regular editor instead. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

I would support the addition of HighInBC to BAG. From what I've seen, he has the knowledge and appropriate judgement necessary to contribute to the process. Mike V • Talk 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. We badly need more BAG members. The project is beginning to transition from rapid content growth to the "maintenance" phase. There will always be a call for new content, of course, but significant effort needs to be put into maintaining the existing quality of our encyclopedia. Demand for bots is larger than ever for these sorts of repetitive maintenance tasks, so I balk when I see that the BAG has shriveled to only six active members with a large majority of the work being done by xaos. I've never doubted HighInBC's judgement and his technical ability is demonstrated by his several successful bots. ~ Rob^Talk 20:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to everyone, we kinda take turns. Back in April, Slakr covered a lot. Around October, I did—back when I still had free time. I think we'd go insane otherwise. — Earwig ^talk 06:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly didn't mean to downplay the contributions of other BAGers from the recent past. I think we can all agree that can't be kept up long-term, though. What happens when the half dozen of you get busy at the same time? Or worse, when a prolonged period of high activity causes burn-out? I'd personally like to see a half-dozen or so competent bot ops recruited to the BAG if only to ensure we have reserves as a "just in case". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this application. BRFA is one of the areas of Wikipedia where we desperately need more assistance. I have no doubts that HighInBC, an experienced administrator with bot experience would be an excellent addition to the team. Omni Flames (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has my trust; clear technical proficiency and well-versed in evaluating consensus and all those other fun things we spend our time doing. He's been at the top of my mental "short-list" for potential BAG members for a while, so I'm happy to see this is happening. — Earwig ^talk 06:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support HighInBC for BAG as well. HighInBC is familiar with software and bot policy, and we definitely need more active BAG members. -FASTILY 08:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Earwig said. Legoktm (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Lego said :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely need more bags.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Musik said. (And what Cyber said, for that matter.) Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.