User talk:Pythoncoder/Archive 4

Archive 4: July 2019–

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4#E._Michael_Jones

I had a bad feeling this would flare up again. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Wikipedia - Followup

I thought you might be interested in doing following up on the Admin controversy at the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

I was returning to the RFC to post more evidence of admin behavior, when I found the RFC been closed back on July 3. Closure.

An ~~Enwiki admin~~ (Winged Blades of Godric), myself, and an IP subsequently raised objections on the closer's talk page.

The closure is not remotely based on anything proposed in the RFC. (There certainly was no proposal to send someone to Azerbaycan.)
The closure frivolously dismisses a clear consensus as "mild support". (The global community consensus is especially overwhelming if you set aside the obvious opposes from the AzWiki admins themselves.)
Prior to closing, the closer was offered financial support from the Foundation to travel to Azerbaycan help the admins to behave better, which the closer clearly would not receive if the RFC were closed to desysop those admins. The closer had clear COI. The closer amazingly claims the travel benefits was not something of value, and therefore presumably would not constitute a COI. A COI, or even the appearance of COI, means they should have left the RFC to be closed by anyone else.
When the closer was asked is it true that do you know (m)any az-wiki admin(s), personally? If yes, were they involved in the incidents discussed over the RFC? If yes, do you see any conflict-of-interest? the closer closer respond and the last point, I have so many friends in azwiki.... The closer themselves upgraded "knowing" the abusive admins to a question&answer about the closer's "friends". The COI, or even the appearance of COI, means they should have left the RFC to be closed by anyone else.
When I noted that one of the problems with the admins was that they were operating as an off-wiki conspiracy club and that no consensus would ever support gathering those admins in a real-life-buddy-club as a fix, the closer says they will be conducting online meetings to address the problems. Which raises the obvious absurdity, why would we spending money to ship someone to Azerbaycan to conduct online meetings? The closer also plans to supply the abusive admins a officially-sanctioned clubhouse for conspiring. A Foundation-supplied private mailing list.
The closer said to Winged Blades of Godric I am not going to respond to any of your comments and what you ask means nothing to me, and they said to me Alsee, This is also my last comment for you. The closer refuses any further constructive discussion. Given a non-communicative closer, the only remaining option would be to open Meta a proposal to review and overturn the close. Although I haven't yet decided whether to take on that headache.

I don't know if you would want to make this connection, but I find it surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) that the Foundation would do something like this in the middle of the FRAMBAN mess. They offered the closer some sort of travel package, effectively to close against community consensus and prevent the community from removing admins found to be abusive based on a public examination of evidence. It's almost the same issue in reverse. Alsee (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating for the record that WBG is not an admin at this time. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Somehow I must have confused WBG with my recollection of someone else's RFA. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DR under development

I think it would be worth noting that Yelyos made 22 edits since 5 July 2008, with zero edits in 2017 or 2018, then came back and requested re-sysop. Their userpage even now says they are retired. If this doesn't appear in the report, I'd probably feel compelled to make it a comment. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to project revival

Dear user, I, with Willbb234, are a attempting to revive the Wikiproject Requested Articles, of which you are a member. If you wish to be a part of our effort, feel free to add your signature in it's talk page. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 16:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MacKeeper page edits

@Pythoncoder: hi! Sorry for the impression you got from these edits. I am not paid for this particular edits. However, I am working on MacKeeper. My edits are aimed to update an article with the information about the new release of MacKeeper 4.0 (as the article has information about other previous releases - MacKeeper 1,2 and 3.0). So I can't deny that I am receiving payments from the company on the regular basis, as employee.

If I am not mistaken, it's not banned by Wikipedia to make edits as a company representative. An I hope, it's ok to update product page with the new information (witout advertisement or link building) I tried to make them sound not like an advertisement (no call to install or compliments to the new version). However, if my edits should be updated to be more compliant, please, let me know.

Thank you!

Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikrikris (talk • contribs) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget or user script

Hi Pythoncoder,

Hope you are doing good. I'd like to ask you to help about user script, would you like to make user script for create WD property. You can use test.wikidata.org to make and test, you will get data from the link below. I was try to make Gadget but unfortunately I couldn’t. If you need any user rights on testwd please let me know. Please help. Thank you in advance! Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 08:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]