User talk:BU Rob13
Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.
If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.
Sorry for the mobile editing. I read your post on problem with burnout and good faith. The article was nice.
Disappointing to see you distance yourself from Wikipedia, I have less importance for ArbCom than Wikipedia losing a faithful editor. Take your time and good luck! --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom can certainly suck all the joy out of the place, can't it? Not just ArbCom business itself, but it kind of sucks the joy out of the other parts too. You lasted 3 times as long as I did, so a hat tip for that. All the best, whatever direction you decide to go from here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Although we didn't always agree on lines of reasoning, I appreciated your genuine efforts to look for the best approach moving forward and to listen to others. Thank you for your contributions; your involvement in future is always welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!Edit
|Thank you for all you've done. Have a nice cup of tea and a break, and come back when you're ready. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)|
Sorry to hear you are semi-retired. Getting burned out? A good semi-break always helps if that's the case. Hopefully you come back in full at some point, but only do so if you're up do it. I take it you'll still be around, though, which would certainly be helpful in case our little sockpuppet "friend" shows up again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Less burned out, more tired of the abuse the community heaps on its most dedicated members. I'll be vaguely about, but response times might not be great. ~ Rob13Talk 17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear this too, and I hope this turns out to be a break rather than a retirement. I have witnessed a fair amount of the abuse thrown your way; I imagine there's a good deal more that I haven't seen. There's more to Wikipedia than administrative tasks, though, and I hope that someday you are able to find enjoyment in content work again. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "Community" seems more focused sometimes on protecting "newbies", many of whom are no such thing, rather than long-term editors who have years of experience earned the hard way. I'd also like to see more focus on protecting the encyclopedia itself. However, the Foundation seems to have other goals. If that had been made clear to me when I first joined Wikipedia 13 years ago, I might not have stayed very long. Ironically, the Foundation's unalterable policy of open editing, in my opinion, allows so much abuse by a small minority of IPs, mostly white males, to be disruptive to the point that it scares of the very minorities they want to reach out to, especially females. Sorry for my SOAPBOXing, but I'm near the point of semi-retirement myself. And dynamic IPs are notoriously difficult to block for fear of blocking good IPs, of which there are many. I recently had a run-in with a now-banned user who was using IPs to pretend to be a new user. Seeing other long-term editors flee the ship isn't encouraging to me. I remember when that happened about 10-12 years ago, when many experienced users who mentored me in my early days fled Wikipedia due to perceived admin abuse, which protected new abusive users over experienced ones. Thankfully, that changed, and we have had many admins since then that realize the problem and defend experienced editors and the project, such as BU Rob. Unfortunately, the tide seems to be turning again, and I'm not sure how much longer I'll remain myself. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- How can you know demographics of IP account users? Behind an IP is a real person(or more), all races and nationalities, maybe a old English white male or a young Indian female.Sorry, off-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
- I can't know personally, but the foundation states a majority of editors are males, with a majority of those being white. At least that's my understanding, based I on what I remember reading. If I misremembered or am otherwise in error on the statistics, sorry. (Full disclosure, I am a white male.) Also, my opposition to IP editing is primarily that it creates a two-tier system, where registered users have some advantages, especially in privacy, and unregistered users have advantages, especially with dynamic IPs, that make disruptive editing very easy to do but hard to block. It's not about AGF, but an inherently unfair system that is unfair to both sides. But that's my soapbox, not BU Rob's. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss the merits of closed vs. open editing. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
|Might as well. Am glad to hear you might still be occasionally lurking around. I read your AGF essay and yeah...it made me sad. Assuming the best of people seems to be hard to do for folks these days. Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)|
Greetings and oh hell yeahEdit
I truly loathed my time on ArbCom, and I wish I'd never done it. I started here mostly fighting vandals, and it's what I mostly do now. I hope you don't distance yourself too far; the project is worth it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
A caipirinha for you from BrazilEdit
|F*ing important work award|
|A nice drink from Brazil for you.
Your work is important all around the world.
Time to move on?Edit
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I don't envy anyone the task of Arbcom, and I think few people do.
I did comment a few years back:
Editors are allowed to make many mistakes, administrators relatively few, checkusers and arbitrators almost none, and that is as it should be.
However it was not these kinds of mistake I was referring to, it was those that, by and large, result from not doing due diligence. Mis-speaking, even in a wiki-context, is not the same as mis-acting.
We have seen a number of cases in recent times where something was taken in more a negative way than was meant, and where there is room for doubt, the first step should be to ask for clarity, not to venture into battle.
Perhaps this is the result of the Twitter culture, perhaps it is just more to the fore than in the past, but I do wish that it would, and hope that it will stop.
Meanwhile if you revert to being a simple editor, I am sure, with time, a lot of the trials and tribulations of the past will be erased. I once dreaded the orange message bar for what dire tidings it might bring, now the worst is someone wanting to delete something they don't understand.
These things do pass.