Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/DreamRimmer

• {{user15|DreamRimmer}}

Hi everyone! I am putting myself forward for BAG membership to help with the bot approval process. I understand that being a good BAG member requires both technical expertise and a solid understanding of policies. On the technical side, I write and maintain bots and have been through the BRFA process multiple times with my bots over the past 14 months. I am comfortable working with Python and JavaScript, and I have very basic knowledge of PHP. I frequently use APIs and database queries. On the policy side, I am familiar with WP:BOTPOL and WP:BAGG, as well as community consensus for bot tasks. I have been actively involved in bot-related discussions, assisted with bot requests, and provided feedback on proposed tasks. I am confident that I can help with this, and when in doubt, I will always ask other experienced BAG members, just as I have done before. Thanks for considering my nomination. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

1. What do you think of speedily approving BRFAs? When should they be used? Do you think more BRFAs can be speedily approved than they are being done today? Feel free to combine the questions and give a short answer. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. : Speedy approval applies to non-controversial tasks, such as extensions of tasks that have already been approved, especially when performed by an experienced coder in good standing. It also depends on the nature of the bot task. For example, if it is a backup bot task for an inactive bot and there are no changes to the code, it can be speedily approved, provided the operator has demonstrated expertise through past BRFAs and the bot code is in working condition. Non-controversial tasks with a very low number of pages can also be speedily approved for proven operators. While we cannot arbitrarily change the frequency of speedy approval, any task that meets these criteria can be speedily approved, regardless of the number of requests received. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :: Follow up: Could you quantify {{tq|Non-controversial tasks with a very low number of pages}} with a rough number or range? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. ::: It depends on the task. While there is not a set limit, a straightforward find-and-replace AWB task that affects 500-1000 pages can be speedily approved for a proven operator. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. How active do you think you can be at BOTREQ? Very optional question out of curiosity. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
6. : I check BOTREQ daily and help with unclaimed requests. I have some real-life work in February, so my activity might be lower, but it will return to its current level in March. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
7. When should BAG require that community consensus for a task be established at a Village pump or a similar venue outside of WP:BRFA? Anomie⚔ 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
8. : As I understand it, normal BRFAs do not always need large amounts of input, but some BRFAs need to be publicized widely to gain consensus. For example, if the task is likely to be contentious or has previously sparked significant debate or disagreement, such as article creation bots which are generally controversial, community consensus should be established outside of WP:BRFA. If a BRFA is filed without any prior consensus, it can be put on hold for more discussion outside of WP:BRFA. Tasks that will affect a large number of pages (eg. Tom.Bot Task 8) or tasks that are novel or experimental should gather input from a wider community to help identify potential issues. Also, if BAG is in doubt about community consensus for a task, they can require that consensus be established at a village pump or a similar venue outside of WP:BRFA. Normally, only BAG and bot-interested folks watch BRFAs, so discussing these tasks outside of WP:BRFA allows the community to provide input, as village pumps and other common venues are visited by a large number of people. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please transclude your nomination at WT:BAG#Requests for BAG membership and notify WP:BOTN. – SD0001 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot to note that it was already done at the same time. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

: Support this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I also support this. DreamRimmer is a hard worker in general and is good about asking questions when unsure. He's asked me bot questions via DM and strikes me as a careful and conscientious editor, who has picked up a lot of knowledge about bots. Lately I have noticed DreamRimmer at WP:BOTREQ and other venues taking over important bot tasks when operators go inactive. If I am counting right, appears to have commented on [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/DreamRimmer/4 44 BRFAs]. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:No concerns. BAG could always do with more good members. I'm happy to support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Support. DreamRimmer is an experienced bot op who actively contributes on BRFAs. The answers to the questions are appropriate and BAG could use more active members. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Strong Support - No concerns, trusted users. --- Sukumαr05 • [@píng mє] 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've found DreamRimmer to be helpful, knowledgeable, and productive. I'd be glad to see {{them|User:DreamRimmer}} on BAG. Folly Mox (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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.