User talk:Galobtter

Arbitration committee history

In 2018, an arbitrator resigned after the rest of the committee expressed concerns about breaches of CheckUser policy and confidentiality. isaacl (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that case because it prompted amending ARBCOND because it was deemed too hard to actually remove an arb. Galobtter (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Self Revert"

I'm still a bit confused by what happened with that Arbitration Enforcement thing. Irtapil (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the concept of "self reverts" . What are they for?
• If the other editor didn't like how I'd modified a page, why didn't they just change it to the way they thought it should be?
• Self reverts don't count as reverts? That much I've got so far. So if I notice my own error then I fix it myself, and then whatever I did wrong doesn't count?
• But if somebody else noticed my error, wouldn't it be quicker and more efficient for them to fix it themself? Is it about not getting in trouble? But then why not just do a warning and apology?
• What is the purpose of me don't the revert myself?
• If I'm not confident I understand what they want, is it good enough to just give them permission to do it themselves? Because if I knew an edit I made was objectionable, then I obviously would have fixed it myself already.

Irtapil (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If the other editor didn't like how I'd modified a page, why didn't they just change it to the way they thought it should be? Partially because they didn't want to use their 1 revert to do so and to let you correct your own error (that's what a self-revert is for).

So if I notice my own error then I fix it myself, and then whatever I did wrong doesn't count? Not necessarily, but if you make an unintentional violation it's usually not an issue if you self-revert. (But you still are expected to be careful.)

What is the purpose of me don't the revert myself? To show that you that you are fixing any issues you may have made.

is it good enough to just give them permission to do it themselves Generally it's better to show that you understand the issue and correct the issue yourself. Galobtter (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bon Courage and JPS

With all respect, you should not have closed that discussion. You are far too involved with political topics to be an unbiased closer. Anyone who looks at your editing history can see what I am talking about. 2603:8002:73F:1FCF:D1B2:FA93:BA56:B7F0 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban lifling

Good day, Galobtter. More than half a year passed since my topic ban by you on pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts and I tried to follow it. I would like to ask you to lift this topic ban. I will not participate in edit warring and will try to solve any disputes on talk pages. Interfase (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)