User talk:Firefly/Archive 10

Request to recuse
Per Yngvadottir's evidence, and in line with WP:ARBPOL, you are requested to recuse from the Conflict of interest management case.

Please see also this discussion on the evidence talk page, which explains why I am posting this request. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in replying, I wanted to give this the thought it deserved.
 * Bottom line up front, I do not believe I need to recuse in this case.
 * 's evidence correctly states that I reverted an edit on Nihonjoe's talk page. It also states that my reply to their asking me to restore it didn't answer their question. In hindsight this is also true, and I should have been clearer. The edit was made by a sock of a WMF-banned long-term abuser (Brian K Horton). This user frequently involves themselves in internal matters, particularly around ArbCom, seemingly with the goal of stirring up drama. I have on various occasions blocked these socks and reverted their enquiries per WP:BMB (e.g. 1, 2), as I have with probably hundreds of other socks wanting to stir up trouble. I didn't think that restoring the actions of a WMF-banned user would be a wise course of action.
 * What I should have said is that if Yngvadottir felt that the enquiry was nonetheless valid, they were free to take ownership of it - either ask it themself or revert it and state that they were taking it over. By instead saying "well Nihonjoe can reply if they want to" (and implicitly saying that others should not restore the comment, despite that not being my intention) it gave the impression that I was putting a finger on the scale - allowing Nihonjoe to 'avoid' replying to the enquiry by not replying to it. This was doubly unwise given the ongoing arbitration proceeding - while the action was routine, there are plenty of other Checkusers or administrators who could have performed it, and I probably should have left it to them to avoid even the appearance of a conflict and will do so in the future.
 * I apologise for the lack of clarity in my response. I will gently say that Yngvadottir could have replied to my response and asked for clarity, or called me out then and there if they felt I was being unfair - but I realise that as an Arb it is on me to ensure that I give detailed responses when dealing with things in the orbit of Committee business.
 * Where I disagree with Yngvadottir,, and is that this requires my recusal. ARBPOL states that Arbitrators should recuse where there is personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. This is a high bar. I suppose the case for recusal would be that my reversion of the enquiry and decision not to reinstate it was aimed at protecting Nihonjoe from scrutiny or advocating for him - perhaps because I want to "back him up" personally, or because I have a desire to limit scrutiny of COI editing more broadly? I think both of these are easy to refute - I have no personal connection with Nihonjoe in any form (indeed I can't recall any places we have interacted at all), and I do not believe that reverting that enquiry has in any way lessened the scrutiny that he has received. Indeed the ongoing case has put the entire matter under about as high-resolution a microscope as you're likely to find on Wikipedia.
 * I hope this assuages your concerns. If not you can of course refer the matter to the Committee for a vote. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The big issue a lot of us have had and the reason why 3 arbitrator recusals have been requested and have now been referred to the whole committee (was initially attempted days ago but refused at the time due to procedural error) is the appearance of impropriety and how that reduces the community's trust in any decision that is reached. I'm not sure whether or not this is an unfair expectation but it's not one that I alone have. Noah, AATalk 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure whether I want you to recuse, Firefly. My main issue is the one you recognise above: that there's a whole group of checkusers who could have removed the query from Nihonjoe's page, even if you were the one to block the editor who posted it, and since it was germane to a case that was being requested and might or might not be accepted (both the posting and removal took place while the committee was considering the case request), I do think you as an Arb should have left it to another admin to remove it. However, since you removed it as an admin action and since you are a checkuser and an Arb, I asked you to self-revert the removal because as a non-admin, non-checkuser, and non-Arb I really should not revert such actions; I can't know the circumstances well enough to take on responsibility for reinstating the edit. Things were made worse by a gap in your editing that meant you didn't get back to me for well over a day, after which there was no time to press you about it; in fact my request for a word extension wasn't noticed and the case got closed. What's done is done, and we've now had a whole evidence phase including private evidence, but it does give the appearance of deflecting concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yngvadottir I understand, and as I said above I agree that it would have been best to leave it to someone else. I shall do so in any similar circumstances in the future. firefly  ( t · c ) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

fireflytools.toolforge.org/linter/dewiki stuck?
I am not sure, whether I am right here; if not, then please help me find the right addressee. It seems that some of the fireflytools.toolforge.org/linter/_x_x_wiki bots crashed two days ago (they show "As of 2024-03-24 00:15:17" for the last update date and time). Who is able to try restarting them? --At40mha (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Any progress with restarting the bots? --At40mha (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @At40mha - thanks for the report, this job had gotten stuck. I've reset it so it should refresh shortly :) firefly  ( t · c ) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that it is working again. Thank you! --At40mha (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion draft, bot
Hi, I wanted to ask if there is a bot that nominates old drafts for deletion? Another issue is whether it is possible to use your bot in Persian wiki (For this task)? Pereoptic Talk✉️  16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pereoptic - no there's no bot that actually nominates the articles for deletion. And I don't see why not - I can post the code on the WMF GitLab for you to do with as you wish :) firefly  ( t · c ) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I will create a request for this task on the Persian wiki and ping you to put your bot code there for approval. best Pereoptic  Talk✉️  16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Please write additional details on this page. Thankful Pereoptic  Talk✉️  16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pereoptic - I can't run the bot on another wiki, as I don't think it wise for me to run a bot on a wiki where I don't understand the language or have any local activity. I'll post the code publicly today and you (or someone else) can use it to run the bot :) firefly  ( t · c ) 15:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem; Whatever you want. Just one more question. Did your request on
 * Bot0612 10
 * allow you to nominate drafts for deletion? I did not understand the meaning of the conversations that took place on that page. If this bot code allows you to nominate drafts for deletion, is it possible to allow this code to be used as well?
 * Pereoptic Talk✉️  16:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Firefly,

I just noticed that Shewasafairy and I'm tla were receently blocked. In the block rationale for I'm tla you allude to Shewasafairy so were they sockpuppets of each other? Was there a sockmaster or an SPI I can look at? They both participated in AFD discussions and I'm unsure whether or not their comments should be struck. Really as much information as you Checkusers can sharee can help the rest of us know how to treat their contributions. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Liz yes, treat them as socks of each other. I don't know whether there's an SPI for this case - do you know?  firefly  ( t · c ) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Firefly bot
Hello, Firefly,

I sometimes notice that drafts/sandboxes come up for CSD G13 deletion and they never received a Firefly bot notice. Usually, I forget about them and so don't report them to you but tonight I saw a sandbox coming due tomorrow that is User:Andrewkathie/sandbox and they don't have any User talk page messages so Firefly Bot didn't post a notification to them. I hope you get this message before the page is deleted so you can look into this example. Thanks so much! Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you help with the master?
I am hoping to find the master in order to file an SPI (unless you can do a quick CU). User is I'm tla who shows blocked by you but I do not see the master. It links to another blocked user (Shewasafairy) but I cannot locate that master either. Both accounts were the only !keep votes in an AfD for Failatu Abdul-Razak in February 2024. There are now four SPA accounts (Amu'az4Z, Adamu ab, Yaw tuba, and Adansi11) who worked on and submitted Draft:Abdul-Razak Failatu. Note the attempt at changing the name to avoid detection of the previous deletion as well as similarity of usernames from the deletion discussion. Think it is worth a check but let me know if there is a master I can point to. Thanks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that the person who uploaded the image (OJjnr) is also blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41 took a look with CU - the accounts there don't appear to be related. Of course it could be a different group of people being paid to edit about the same person... firefly  ( t · c ) 14:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Behavior says it is likely UPE so I just tagged it as such. Thanks for looking into the SOCK aspect. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Nyttend
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg JohnOwens · Killiondude · MelanieN · Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Nihonjoe



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news
 * Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
 * A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
 * Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Request for wording change
Hi, is this from one of your bots? Is there any way I could convince you to change "bogus file options" to something a little less derogatory, like "file option errors" or some other wording of your choice? There's a backstory to the request but tl;dr somebody says it's ok to use "bogus" in an edit summary because it's in this report (and maybe whatever tool he is using). He's pretty wrong about that, but is not a native English speaker and apparently doesn't believe wiktionary.

Changing the software labels is a fairly trivial ask as far as I know, and it would rescue us both from a conversation that neither he nor I is enjoying. I would appreciate it if that happened. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have subscribed to the topic; ok to answer here Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Bogus (file options)" **IS** the official Wikipedia term for unrecognized file parameters within WP:EIS file syntax. Details on the Bogus file options can be found here. Using the word "bogus" is in no way, shape, or form, any sort of commentary on you or your edits. To my knowledge, Firefly is not the originator of the term and is not in control of the term. Jonesey95 simply mentioned Firefly's report as it is a far easier to use than Wikipedia's report layout of the same information seen here, and was not saying Firefly had any control over the term. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for the answer. Where then would be the place to take this request? the ticket system? The fact that the wording is "official" doesn't make it any less insulting. The word should not appear in an edit summary. If the wording comes from the WMF, then the WMF needs to be asked to comply with its own CoC. I realize that feels blindsided, and I have disengaged, but he and I previously had a run-in about "fixing" things within minutes of an error occurring. And sure, yes, there was an error. I failed to type "alt=" and did not immediately remove the original caption when I decided I liked the wording intended for the alt better than the caption. This is probably a fringe case in that the vast majority of lint errors are probably on abandoned articles. I wonder though if we could make this easier for the Joneseys of Wikipedia by not including errors that are less than x amount of time old in the report. Let's take this off firefly's page if they has nothing to do with it, as they seems to have enough to worry about already. Please make any response to either my talk page or, if it's more convenient, ping me from elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

FireflyBot bug?
In, warned a user that their sandbox would soon be eligible for deletion under WP:G13. This is obviously false, right? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)