Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Snottywong

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for Bot Approvals Group membership that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Closed as no consensus. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BAG Nomination: Snottywong

[edit]

I'm willing to help out with the BRFA backlog if you'll have me. My bot, Snotbot, runs several approved tasks (primarily using the pywikipedia library with a lot of custom code) and I have also developed various tools on my toolserver site. 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 here. Thanks for your consideration. —SW— babble 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]
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 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. —SW— talk 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Support Good bot op, and good comments on recent BRFAs. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 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. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Headbomb. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 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. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. 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. Security through obscurity). Wikipedia 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. — Dispenser 03:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed 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 should do a task" (or, conversely, "bots shouldn't 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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 (1, 2, 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. —SW— spout 13:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 why it's not getting support is troubling. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 approved for a trial. In any case, I've withdrawn the BRFA. —SW— communicate 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 "ridiculous".
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 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

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 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? --Chris 07:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request here. —SW— confabulate 23:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. (X! · talk)  · @337  ·  07:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 done by. --Chris 08:12, 13 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Snottywong&oldid=1138378122"