User talk:Firefly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:FireflyBot)


Query[edit]

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]

Can you help with the master?[edit]

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)[reply]

Also note that the person who uploaded the image (OJjnr) is also blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Firefly bot[edit]

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous


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

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

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)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Request for wording change[edit]

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)[reply]

I have subscribed to the topic; ok to answer here Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@Zinnober9: 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 Jonesey95 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 he has nothing to do with it, as he 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)[reply]