Page 1 of 1

BU Rob13

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 3:55 pm
by CrowsNest
Resigned from the Arbitration Committee, and semi-retired from Wikipedia......
I do not intend to provide my reasons for this resignation, which I hope the community will respect. The closest I have/will come is this essay, published two weeks ago: User:BU Rob13/AGF applies to everyone. That's a very incomplete view of my reasons for resigning, though. I will note two things: First, this has nothing to do with personal or family reasons. I still have time available to give; I've just reached a point where I've decided not to give it here. Second, in light of the Alex Shih resignation last year, I think it's prudent for me to affirmatively state that this resignation does not stem from any misconduct, actual or alleged. ~ Rob13Talk 06:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Whee does he get off telling people they don't need to know his full reasons? Even worse, why is he pretending people can't learn more simply by reading his posts on the official Wikipedia Chill Out Lounge, Wikipediocracy? ... mit=Search

Hilarious statement however, if only for the reminder that Rob was on the Committee that stood by and said nothing, even though they knew Alex Shih, another customer of the chill out rooms, was lying his ass off in his resignation statement.
I confirm that Rob is not retiring under a cloud. Quite the reverse. He has been a respected and authoritative figure on the Committee, and the one least likely to make errors, despite being one of the most active behind the scenes. I'm not sure what the "rules" are regarding Arb retirement. If an admin or crat retires, they can request the tools back without a fuss; I hope the same is true for Arbs, and that with enough public support being shown to Rob, that he will feel more encouraged and will return. SilkTork (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Least likely to make errors? Other than standing for election to a role you were clearly not suited for?

And now we have to have a constitutional crisis because there's no policy that says whether or not a Committee Member who bales on their commitment to serve for two years, can then just come and go as they please in that two years? Being allowed to temporarily sign off as inactive is not terribke

He resigned. If he doesn't make mistakes, then let him live with the entirely foreseeable consequences of that decision. If you are in any doubt, consult the Chill Out Room, where he was explicit in his view that this was about him departing his seat early because he had done what he wanted to achieve and so it was either leave, or "suffer on to complete my term".

Poor little lamb. Poor little STILL A FUCKING ADMINISTRATOR all burned out little soldier.


Keen eyed readers will spot one of his two main election pledges was.....
I'd like the Committee to be more active in all phases of arbitration cases. ArbCom is necessarily an opaque group, as they handle a good deal of private information, but they don't have to be opaque everywhere. Certain recent cases would have run more smoothly if arbitrators had popped in every once-in-a-while and given a status update on how the Committee understood the issues before it. This can help focus cases and resolve them more quickly with less unnecessary drama. We need less courtroom and more conversation.
Resigning seven months early takes the absolute piss (they can fit a whole three cases in that time), even more so when he is literally resigning half-way through an Arbitration Case he voted to accept, even though as far as I can tell he had checked out of his responsibilities well before that, since 9 April.... ... =891624587

Yet another constitutional crisis. Arbs whose terms have expired are allowed to remain active in cases they accepted during their term. So why not people who resign half way through, if that resignation might only be temporary.......

Re: BU Rob13

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:34 pm
by CrowsNest
I actually disagree on the "already should have been done" part. ArbCom shouldn't be making blocking decisions based on CU evidence for admin socking. That should stay with the CU team as individuals. ArbCom is only "needed" to address the sysop flag in that situation.

Separation of powers, etc.
Really? This is obviously garbage because it implies there would be a conflict of interest. Sure, having shady fucks like BU Rob manage to get elected to the Committee does lower everybody's trust levels as regards motivations and loyalties, but on the face of it this is not a conflict that should ever arise without there being far more serious trust issues present.

But it is worth pointing out that even if he believes it to be the correct approach, it can hardly be argued he has failed to follow it himself......
I also reviewed the evidence related to socking here, and I would consider this rather iron-clad. I queried Od about the evidence when I was still on the Committee, and I personally found his response extremely lacking. It failed to explain the weight of the technical and behavioral evidence; there was plenty of both. The only reason I did not block at that time was because I felt the desysopping question needed to be answered first. Several experienced local CheckUsers weighed in with opinions that they would have blocked this editor had they not been an administrator at the time during discussions of the evidence. Now that the desysopping question has been addressed, I have blocked the account in my capacity as an individual CheckUser. Thank you to the Committee for pursuing this investigation to its conclusion. ~ Rob13Talk 22:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting take on the word "separation" ....

There's also this....
It's been just over 12 hours. I'm not even expected to respond to work emails that quickly, let alone calls for clarity on a vote I placed weeks ago. As noted above by an arbitrator, Courcelles expressed opposition to this desysop early on, before the Committee had the complete evidence and understanding of Od's conduct. He didn't just place a vote yesterday and then disappear. Maybe give it some time before you decide he's decided to refuse an explanation. We don't even know that he's seen this yet. You're literally demanding more from him than an employer would. ~ Rob13Talk 10:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
You placed a vote? I don't see your name on the notice.....?

And this.....
The basic reason for my block is that I don't feel the editor can be currently trusted, but I too hope that trust can be regained. Based on the evidence I analyzed, Od disruptively vandalized content pages (not articles, but pages that contained content nonetheless). These are pages that our readers could navigate to from mainspace, in certain instances, not project pages. Moreover, he did not take ownership of this fact, instead continuing to evade scrutiny. Most importantly, he did this all from a role of extreme community trust, which makes the breach of trust so much worse. It will likely take an ownership of his conduct and a frank explanation of why he felt it necessary to start on the path to returning as an editor. ~ Rob13Talk 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
You figured all this out even though we are led to believe you were not part of the Committee discussions regarding their desysopping for the last two weeks?

And this.....
In this case, I blocked as an individual, but multiple opinions were given to me - on-list and privately - from other experienced locally-appointed CheckUsers that they considered the evidence and behavior sufficient to warrant an indefinite CU block. Given all that, "it only takes one" doesn't really apply here. ~ Rob13Talk 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Opinions from whom? Based on what evidence? Whose list?

It seems pretty damn obvious that there is no way in hell Rob acted here in the capacity of just another CU. He was either being told things precisely because he had been involved as an Arbitrator, or worse, someone has kept him in the loop even though he has supposedly resigned.

Was he even removed from the Committee mailing list when he resigned?

This "separation of powers" ideas is clearly nonsense, not only because there is no real need for it, but also because, quite clearly, unless Rob has been wearing two hats at the same time, it doesn't seem like there is anything the CUs didn't know that the Committee did. Given both are trusted to handle confidential information, there is no reason for them not to.