Open main menu


Contents

GaloBot 4 male biosEdit

Hi, thanks so much for developing this! As discussed at the WiR talk page, here are a few names of men who have come up in the bot results. It's not a large number, so won't be a big deal if the bot can't be refined to leave them out without leaving the drafts we want out too. There was actually one biography of a man I got interested in, and worked on the draft, so that ended up being a plus! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen Thanks for providing the list. Looking through, there are some ways to exclude male biographies (e.g. exclude if the article has "he was") but that would also cause false negatives, so I think any changes to reduce the amount of male biographies in the report would be more effort than worth it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Just wanted to re-ping you on whether you'd like to collaborate on an RFA nom. If so, just email me   GABgab 14:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Emailed! Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to reconsider topic ban on me with regard to the article on Toby YoungEdit

Hello Galobtter; this is in response to your decision to ban me from editing the Toby Young article. You said I could come here in the first instance, and so I'm doing so. I'd like you to think again about the ban and to consider the following points. I'm not very good at finding and linking to things on here, but I believe you'll find, if you are able to click back around the controversy over the relevant sentence, that what I say below is true.

1. All my edits to the relevant sentence were made with reference to Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. I consistently tried to change the phrase 'misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts' to something like 'Twitter posts that some/many have seen as misogynistic and homophobic.' My view has been that we don't need to take sides in the controversy - we simply need to inform readers of it. Readers can then make their own minds up. (Note that my aim has not been to insert language asserting that the tweets were definitely NOT homophonic and misogynistic.) 2. The record will show that I made repeated good faith attempts at compromise, from watering down my language (even to something like 'tweets that were widely seen as homophobic and misogynistic') to agreeing to keep that phrase as is but adding a reference to Young's defence of himself in Quillette right afterwards. All these attempts at compromise were rejected out of hand. 3. I several times referred the matter to various fora. On these occasions, several other Wikipedia users agreed with me that the phrase as stands could use some re-working to abide by the neutral point of view policy. In fact, it's my recollection that it was nearly always the majority of users who supported a change to the language, with a small number of insistent and active opponents (e.g. Fae) refusing to change it. At any rate, there was very clearly never any consensus against my view. 4. Through the course of the controversy I have always been unfailingly polite, never resorting to speculation about my interlocutors' motives. This has been in striking contrast to Fae, for example, who repeatedly accused me of bad faith, and made groundless insinuations about me. 5. It's true that I have made a good number of reverts and changes to the phrase in question, but that's also true of Fae. I may have stepped over a line in Wikipedia policy that I'm not familiar with, but if it was just my reverts that drew the ban, I fail to see why my reverts should draw a ban but Fae's shouldn't, especially considering that I was the one defending Wikipedia policies, and I had the support of the majority of those who commented on the controversy. 6. I have a pretty clean record on Wikipedia, mainly contributing sections of articles on Greek history. I think this is the first big controversy I've been involved in. Fae, by contrast, is apparently often involved in controversies of this sort - in fact I happened to notice that there is currently a complaint against Fae for what looks like highly partisan activism on the article about the Yaniv affair. 7. I'm also, as I noted above, not incredibly clued-up technically. I've struggled a little bit to put my case against Fae and a few other highly active and motivated partisan accounts, all of which seem much better connected with administrators. I also have a full-time job so can only spend time here once every few months. (This, by the way, has definitely undermined my faith in how serious Wikipedia takes political neutrality, and meant that I'm now less willing to spend any significant amount of time contributing.)

That's all for now. Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll reconsider the ban. I should add that I'm still very willing to work towards a reasonable compromise with respect to the phrase in question. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleisthenes2 This appeal largely does not address the behaviour that got you topic banned, i.e persistently edit warring over months to restore the article to your preferred version, and also per my reading, against most editors views - "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Nor is "the other editor was also bad" a valid appeal: while WP:NOTTHEM is about unblock appeals, the advice there about not complaining about other people applies here too. Stating that you have "never resorting to speculation about my interlocutors' motives" and then accusing editors of being "motivated partisan accounts" a few lines down doesn't help your case.
There are ~5 million other articles you can edit and my advice is for you to edit productively on some other article. A record of productive editing on other articles would help any appeal, as would focusing your appeal on addressing the issues that got you topic banned rather than on other editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just checkingEdit

I thought this was a sock account that someone has started in order to poke Eric. I'm dumbfounded to see that not only is this a legit account, but one that carries sysop permissions. Quite extraordinary. CassiantoTalk 07:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is quite needless and Galobtter is one of the more competent and clueful sysops over here. People can disagree and that's quite normal. WBGconverse 08:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Really? Well in this particular situation, this "competent and clueful" sysop has completely misjudged the situation. Perhaps Galobtter should go and find a safe space somewhere and learn the difference between a personal attack and a comment made as a result of bear-baiting. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
^^^What he said^^^. GregJackP Boomer! 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, WBG. @Cassianto, I'm already at the safe space capital of the world, so I'm good on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Galobtter. You really shouldn't be both the filer and an "uninvolved admin" at the Eric Corbett AE. Several admins have said so. I don't know if my ping about it worked, so I'm asking you again, here, to move your comment from the "uninvolved" section up to "Additional comments by editor filing complaint". It's both confusing and weird for you to shapeshift like that. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I saw your ping (and those of many others - always nice to wake up with 8 red alerts :)). I was spending some time reading the various discussions; I'll move my comment up soon since commenting below seems to have caused more confusion than clarity. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

See User_talk:109.145.100.228 - TP history and edits demonstrates unwillingness to change their bad habits. Atsme Talk 📧 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Galobtter".