User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Thank you very much for your fix at ANI. Goddam bots! Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, would you be willing to look at the Antioch International Movement of Churches article and see how my collaborator there is intepreting your remarks at RSN? That page could really use the attention of an experienced editor such as yourself. I'm a bit over my head in dealing with dispute resolution there, and it's only me and one other editor. No worries if you can't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Starship.paint has already helped out, they are much better qualified than I for such things. I've made a few edits and replied at the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added the page toy watch list for the next week. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how qualified I am. I am also busy, so I'd leave this link here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested for your help. starship.paint (RUN) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a couple of quick questions now that the Graywalls etc discussion seems to have died down...

I was surprised to see that the boomerang re: unsubstantiated personal attacks didn't gain more support than it did (and also surprised and disappointed to see that one of the users was able to derail it by repeatedly lying and generally talking nonsense).

Why do you think that the issue failed to get any traction?

Also, any thoughts on why the issue of whether or not Evrik started the thread while logged out was dismissed as being inappropriate?

Of course the issues here are all ancient history now and the thread is as good as closed, but I just wondered about these two points for my own understanding of how ANI tends to work. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The admins just like any other editor have their own personal opinions and ideas, and like any other editor can't be made to edit. Some may have believed that Graywall, even if they were not wrong, should have followed a different method. Others may have just be put off by the constant back and forth, or just been to busy elsewhere. Another thing is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not laws, and ANI is not a court. It's a place to consider and discuss editors behave, it doesn't hand out 'justice'. So it's workings can be a bit chaotic, it does work most of the time but sometimes it might not work immediately. Ultimately you make your piece and see if anyone agrees, in this case no one agreed with the initial report or subsequent proposal.
As to who opened the discussion and whether it was evrik it's a question that shouldn't be asked. IP addresses can be resolved to approximate physical locations, so linking them to an editor or asking and editor to link them treads dangerously close to doxxing (see

trolls who try to create drama at ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting, thanks.

In retrospect it was unfortunate that the unsubstantiated allegations issue (that we both raised) probably obscured the more significant points to emerge from that thread - which were the walled garden that certain scouting articles seem to have become and the issues re: sourcing, COI, etc.

It will be interesting to see if anyone has the stomach to try to resolve those issues at the individual articles. It won't be easy given the regular canvassing employed by Evrik to distort consensus.

Hopefully there will be more eyes on those articles as a result of the recent thread - and that can only be for the best...

Oh well, thanks again for your thoughts, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate Can you do me a favour a seek autoconfirmed protection for the article. I've just noticed an IP has added rapist into the first sentence of the lede again. I'd seek the protection myself but I've just gone to bed and only have my phone. Cheers, TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested here. Can't say I have much sympathy for the subject of the article, but it's getting out of hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested, you suggested in

. After the 2018 RfC there was an attempt to delete all the lists at once, which created chaos (also, two of the lists were WP:FL at the time, and there was the issue of limited participation).

Could I ask your opinion on treating the RfC only as an RfC, but leaving notices on every stand-alone list to ensure adequate participation? Subsequent AfDs would still be required. I believe it would be easy to bundle lists like Spirit Airlines, but ones like Aeroflot may require individual AfDs or at least smaller bundles (to show that the prose has been dealt with appropriately). This is assuming the RfC results in a consensus that the lists don't belong on Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional caution and notification is a good idea. Taking it slow and making sure everyone has a say will hopefully lead to less contention in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]