User talk:Firefly

Archives

1

2

3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template: DRN case status

The bot has stopped updating the case status. It is notifying editors of expiring drafts, but that is a different task. Does the code need to be stopped and restarted?

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's working now. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Yngvadottir'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, El_C, and BilledMammal 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)[reply]

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, AA^Talk 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any progress with restarting the bots? --At40mha (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I see that it is working again. Thank you! --At40mha (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi again, Please write additional details on this page. Thankful Pereoptic ^Talk✉️ 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

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.

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

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)[reply]

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