204:
addressed every security vulnerability that he took the time to point out to me. Many (if not most) toolserver users don't give read access to their home directory, and when I made that same change it was not in response to any of
Dispenser's comments. If anyone requests the source code to any of my tools, I will gladly send it to them. I'm not sure what else I can say to Dispenser, but I'm sorry that our encounter left a bad taste in your mouth, or gave you the impression that I am ignorant.
315:. I vetted his aforementioned Toolserver tool for XSS vulnerabilities and code practices as I typically do when requests to add one to the interface. I provided him a diff of what I thought should be changed and spoke to him privately on IRC about it. He discarded my suggested code and "corrected" every problem I came up with. Quickly growing fed up with how many holes he was plugging, he closed sourced it to TS users (i.e.
373:
discussion is still ongoing, although admittedly it doesn't appear that there is a strong consensus for it. If I were in BAG, I'd probably close that BRFA as no consensus at this point (and I've been thinking about withdrawing it myself soon to save them the trouble). I don't think that having an idea which didn't pan out is a bad sign for a potential BAG member, everyone has a couple denied tasks (
381:, etc.) If my BRFA was for a ridiculous task like a spell-check bot, I could see why you would oppose, but the BRFA was simply a good-faith idea that some editors agreed with, and some editors did not (including you). Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't see how this event reflects poorly on my judgment.
427:
Rereading all of the discussions, I count supporters/opposers split right down the middle about 50/50. I recognize that this is not clear enough consensus to go forward with the task, but I don't think a truly "ridiculous" task would receive anywhere near that much support, nor would it have gotten
449:
I, upon reconisderation, have struck the "ridiculous" comment, however my oppose itself stands. I do believe that this specific BRFA should spill into this specific BAG, because is see it as extremely problematic. In short, the BRFA, and SW's handling of issues raised in it, shook my confidence in
628:
Yes, but if an rfa had been left open several weeks past it's closure day, there would be a huge hubbub. While I don't think the votes should be discounted, I still think that we need to recognise that it should have never been left open this long, and as such, has
Snottywong has been rather hard
203:
Not really. I disagree with his version of the events, but I'm not interested in discussing it here, particularly since it is irrelevant (BAG doesn't approve toolserver tools, or deal with things like XSS vulnerabilities). I appreciate the help that
Dispenser offered to me, and I believe that I
572:
In a time honoured tradition among us in BAG, this discussion has been left open much longer than it should have been (although it is yet to reach the magnitudes of the 6 month BRFAs that we had at one point). I think it is particularly unfair on
Snottywong, as, had this been closed on time (the
372:
You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. It's not solely up to BAG to decide if a task is appropriate, rather it is their job to ensure that adequate discussion about the task has taken place, and that that discussion has resulted in consensus. In the task to which you're referring,
445:
SW has left two comments on my talk page, which for brevity, I won't copy here. The basic gist of them is that SW does not believe that my thoughts on the recent BRFA should spill into the BAG, and that SW takes issues with my categorization of her BRFA as
450:
SW's judgement. I would probably have supported SW had it not been for this incident, and I'd probably have supported this had the BRFA in question been six months ago (or if there is another BAG six months from now), but it's just too soon now.
294:. Though the user tends to be hastier in their actions/responses, they demonstrate a good level of clue and have been moderately active on the bot pages. Good bot op and comments harder BRFAs, which is what BAG lacks right now. —
319:). Knowledge is the crown jewel in the open source world and we should make it possible for others to easily duplicate our work. I believe that Snottywong seeming ignorance would compromise the BAG in technical matters. —
602:
We don't discount votes made on RFAs after the closing date, why should we discount votes made after the closing date here? Unless I was misinformed, BAG nominations work the same way as RFA in that regard.
550:
Snotbot has been extraordinarily helpful, and one failed BRFA isn't a big deal. Weighing in because I happened across this looking for an unrelated archived discussion at one of the village pumps.
151:
339:
do a task"). BAG members occasionally need to make judgements as to the social ramifications of introducing new bot tasks, and I don't really believe that SW can make those judgements.
378:
331:
The recent proposal to involve SnotBot in AfC demonstrates, to me, that the candidate dosen't have a firm grasp of the difference between "Bots can do a task" and "Bots
150:. I am familiar with WP policies and guidelines, including bot policies. I have commented recently on several BRFA's — you can see a list of all of my BRFA edits
374:
509:, I'm not sure I trust your judgment. Also I think your response to Dispenser's oppose is fairly lacking, and doesn't particularly inspire me with confidence --
393:
I have no doubt that your effort was made in good faith, however I also think, to use your words, that it was a ridiculous idea. That you can't seem to tell
242:
He asked me if I thought he should run, and I said yes 'cause he's sane, good bot op, and other good stuff. So support, since I'm not a two-faced douchebag.
134:
555:
573:
policy is after a week iirc) there would have been 5 supports and only 1 oppose. Anyway, should we ask a crat to close, or how do we move from here? --
21:
663:
551:
146:, runs several approved tasks (primarily using the pywikipedia library with a lot of custom code) and I have also developed various tools on
110:
104:
252:
181:
64:
34:
17:
644:
Without trying to be self-serving: are the votes of BAG members given any more weight than non-members? Just curious.
539:
122:
650:
635:
623:
597:
579:
561:
542:
515:
501:
474:
440:
422:
387:
363:
323:
316:
307:
286:
265:
234:
210:
194:
160:
81:
465:
413:
354:
116:
662:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
98:
303:
451:
399:
340:
248:
177:
70:
630:
574:
510:
497:
535:
260:
231:
189:
645:
592:
435:
382:
205:
155:
93:
320:
296:
256:
185:
244:
173:
57:
612:
493:
275:
143:
74:
656:
The above BAG membership discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
524:
228:
142:
I'm willing to help out with the BRFA backlog if you'll have me. My bot,
606:
666:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
147:
618:
33:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
587:
430:
128:
492:
per Anomie and H3llkn0wz. SW knows what he's doing.
227:Good bot op, and good comments on recent BRFAs.
8:
35:request for Bot Approvals Group membership
428:approved for a trial. In any case, I've
397:it's not getting support is troubling.
7:
154:. Thanks for your consideration.
335:do a task" (or, conversely, "bots
28:
171:Any reply to Dispenser's oppose?
552:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1:
651:21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
636:08:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
624:07:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
598:23:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
82:06:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Bot Approvals Group
580:07:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
562:21:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
543:21:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
516:09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
502:09:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
475:04:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
441:16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
423:15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
388:13:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
364:08:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
324:03:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
308:11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
287:06:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
266:20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
235:00:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
211:14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
195:07:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
161:17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
681:
317:Security through obscurity
88:BAG Nomination: Snottywong
659:Please do not modify it.
43:Please do not modify it.
585:I've made a request
148:my toolserver site
44:
622:
472:
420:
361:
306:
282:
80:
42:
672:
661:
633:
615:
609:
604:
590:
577:
558:
532:
531:
528:
513:
471:
466:
463:
433:
419:
414:
411:
360:
355:
352:
299:
295:
283:
280:
264:
193:
138:
77:
71:Talk to Nihonjoe
67:
63:
60:
680:
679:
675:
674:
673:
671:
670:
669:
668:
664:this nomination
657:
631:
613:
607:
586:
575:
570:
556:
529:
526:
525:
511:
467:
460:
456:
452:
429:
415:
408:
404:
400:
356:
349:
345:
341:
297:
279:
276:
273:per Headbomb. -
243:
221:
172:
168:
96:
90:
75:
65:
58:
39:did not succeed
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
678:
676:
654:
653:
641:
640:
639:
638:
600:
569:
566:
565:
564:
545:
518:
504:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
458:
454:
447:
406:
402:
367:
366:
347:
343:
326:
310:
289:
277:
268:
237:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
198:
197:
167:
164:
140:
139:
135:edit summaries
89:
86:
85:
84:
47:
46:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
677:
667:
665:
660:
652:
649:
648:
643:
642:
637:
634:
627:
626:
625:
620:
616:
610:
601:
599:
596:
595:
589:
584:
583:
582:
581:
578:
567:
563:
559:
553:
549:
546:
544:
541:
537:
533:
523:: per SM. ~~
522:
519:
517:
514:
508:
505:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
476:
473:
470:
464:
462:
448:
446:"ridiculous".
444:
443:
442:
439:
438:
432:
426:
425:
424:
421:
418:
412:
410:
398:
396:
391:
390:
389:
386:
385:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
362:
359:
353:
351:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
322:
318:
314:
311:
309:
305:
301:
293:
290:
288:
285:
284:
272:
269:
267:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
236:
233:
230:
226:
223:
222:
218:
212:
209:
208:
202:
201:
200:
199:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
170:
169:
165:
163:
162:
159:
158:
153:
149:
145:
136:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
109:
106:
103:
100:
95:
92:
91:
87:
83:
78:
76:Join WP Japan
72:
68:
61:
55:
54:
49:
48:
45:
40:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
658:
655:
646:
593:
571:
547:
520:
506:
489:
468:
453:
436:
416:
401:
394:
392:
383:
357:
342:
336:
332:
328:
312:
291:
274:
270:
239:
224:
206:
156:
141:
131:
125:
119:
113:
107:
101:
53:no consensus
52:
51:
38:
32:
629:done by. --
434:the BRFA.
22:nominations
219:Discussion
123:page moves
94:Snottywong
50:Closed as
431:withdrawn
337:shouldn't
321:Dispenser
166:Questions
129:block log
540:Contribs
253:contribs
245:Headbomb
182:contribs
174:Headbomb
105:contribs
20: |
568:Closing
548:Support
494:28bytes
490:Support
461:anguard
409:anguard
350:anguard
329:Opposed
313:Opposed
292:Support
271:Support
257:physics
240:Support
225:Support
186:physics
144:Snotbot
557:話して下さい
536:report
521:Oppose
507:Oppose
333:should
281:ASTILY
229:Anomie
632:Chris
617:) ·
576:Chris
534:~~ →
512:Chris
300:KNOWZ
261:books
190:books
111:count
56:. ···
37:that
16:<
647:—SW—
619:@337
614:talk
594:—SW—
588:here
498:talk
469:Wha?
457:ven
437:—SW—
417:Wha?
405:ven
384:—SW—
358:Wha?
346:ven
304:TALK
298:HELL
249:talk
207:—SW—
178:talk
157:—SW—
152:here
117:logs
99:talk
591:.
530:123
527:Ebe
395:why
59:日本穣
621:·
611:·
608:X!
560:)
538:←
500:)
377:,
259:/
255:/
251:/
188:/
184:/
180:/
73:·
69:·
66:投稿
62:·
41:.
605:(
554:(
496:(
459:M
455:S
407:M
403:S
379:2
375:1
348:M
344:S
302:▎
278:F
263:}
247:{
232:⚔
192:}
176:{
137:)
132:·
126:·
120:·
114:·
108:·
102:·
97:(
79:!
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.