Rootology retires Options

[Nerd]

Complete with dull essay on why Wikipedia is apparently broken and failing.

[One]

Oh yeah, I've been meaning to ask, what is your beef with him? Can someone else explain it to me?

This post has been edited by One:

[MZMcBride]

Oh yeah, I've been meaning to ask, what is your beef with him? Can someone else explain it to me?

I should start by saying that I've never met Rootology in-person and I imagine that he's a fine person in real life.

Personally, I don't think I have a particular beef with Rootology, but I do take issue with some of his actions and certainly with his recent behavior.

There are a number of issues that I feel strongly about and I've even written essays about some of them. That said, when someone writes something and then links to it (in bright red) in their user signature, it starts to irritate me. The good ideas will stand for themselves and signatures are not a place to make advocacy statements. (Though obviously using user signatures in this way is not isolated to Rootology.) The way in which Rootology writes a project space page and then tries to shove it down the throats of everyone around him is what I find disturbing and annoying. From my perspective at least, it's as though he woke up one day, had the idea that there wasn't enough equality on Wikipedia, and then decided to shout about it as much as possible before becoming distracted by something else.

The same general themes were true of his "Paid editing" and "Wikipedia Committees" crusades. Once again, I don't have a problem with passionate advocacy. But there's a line and he seems to continually cross it. I don't know if it's Defender of the Wiki syndrome, but it certainly shares characteristics of it. This idea that he must step into every "hot" dispute (like paid editing or Wikipedia's governance) and try to own the discussion with a project space page that he whips up.

He has strong views about allowing anonymous user editing (he certainly isn't alone in this regard). I have no problem if people think that IPs shouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia; I don't agree, but I certainly don't hold it against those who do agree. That said, Rootology hijacked his user talk page (which exists for the primary purpose of user-to-user communication) with some JoshuaZ-related nonsense. I use "hijacked" here to mean that he blanked everything else and replaced the contents with his "Public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me." To me, that's simply inappropriate and completely overdramatic. Not only did he replace the content of his user talk page, he then semi-protected the page without any particular demonstrable justification. That, combined with his previous stated views about anonymous editing, left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. He eventually moved the content to a subpage and unprotected his user talk page; why it didn't start on a subpage (or simply not be posted at all) is beyond me. I don't think any reasonable person would say that he's not trying to be dramatic by doing all of this.

And then there's the issue of "I'm going on break." Wikibreaks are completely healthy; I have no objection to them at all. What I do object to is anyone who claims to be taking one or about to take one who really isn't. To me, that's simply dishonest and isn't acceptable by any user. For weeks now, Rootology has been threatening to take a break. He put up the banners and then the excuses started. First it was that the A Man In Black case hadn't finished, then it was something else, then it was Yet Another Thing. For lack of a better phrase, "shit or get off the pot." If you look, for example, at this edit from June 15, you can see him clearly stating he's going to take a long break. It simply was not true. Within a week he was "back in the trenches." My mention of NoSeptember's "Leaving" essay was no mistake.

I wish there were a kinder way to put it, but his behavior lately is simply annoying. Others seem to find his behavior and edits insightful or helpful or they empathize with his messages; I don't. As I tried to make clear, it's not a particular beef. I'm sure he's a nice guy in real life, but his editing lately is simply irksome. I really wish he would stick to articles and avoid the project namespace altogether. I wish him all the best, whether or not he chooses to return to Wikipedia. I mean that.

A few final thoughts. As you coyly pointed out, I'm not free of drama myself, but I won't let that stop me from judging. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) I also apologize for the length of this post.

There was one minor point I specifically didn't address. You mentioned a noindexing issue, but I don't know what you're referring to, so I can't comment. I'd be happy to respond if you can throw a link or some context in my direction. I can say, broadly, that using {{NOINDEX}} on a user talk page is like putting a Band-Aid on a cast—all user talk pages on the English Wikipedia are excluded from search engines unless a user explicitly asks for them to be indexed.

[Milton Roe]

[And then there's the issue of "I'm going on break." Wikibreaks are completely healthy; I have no objection to them at all. What I do object to is anyone who claims to be taking one or about to take one who really isn't. To me, that's simply dishonest and isn't acceptable by any user. For weeks now, Rootology has been threatening to take a break. He put up the banners and then the excuses started. First it was that the A Man In Black case hadn't finished, then it was something else, then it was Yet Another Thing. For lack of a better phrase, "shit or get off the pot." If you look, for example, at this edit from June 15, you can see him clearly stating he's going to take a long break. It simply was not true. Within a week he was "back in the trenches." My mention of NoSeptember's "Leaving" essay was no mistake.

It's rather silly to call "simply not true" or even worse, "dishonest" when somebody makes unrealistic plans about the future and then fails to carry them out. Even if it's repeated. How many people do you know who've told others that they plan to do something by tomorrow, or next week, and fail repleatedly to meet their own self-imposed deadline? "Self-imposed" being a key issue, here. You're not Rootology's boss, and I fail to see why you think you should be able to hold him accountable like he was a self-excusing employee of yours. If he announces publicly a self-imposed deadline which he doesn't meet, this gives you, the reader, no entitlement at all. Except maybe the right to say you've seen such language before you'll believe it when you see it. But that's all. "Lying" is not a part of this.

Now, is Rootology's problem poor time-management, or addictive behavior? Dunno. Doesn't matter. Either way it's his problem, not yours. Since, again, he is a volunteer who does not work for you. Does not even volunteer for you.

If you know what I'm sayin'. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[MZMcBride]

[And then there's the issue of "I'm going on break." Wikibreaks are completely healthy; I have no objection to them at all. What I do object to is anyone who claims to be taking one or about to take one who really isn't. To me, that's simply dishonest and isn't acceptable by any user. For weeks now, Rootology has been threatening to take a break. He put up the banners and then the excuses started. First it was that the A Man In Black case hadn't finished, then it was something else, then it was Yet Another Thing. For lack of a better phrase, "shit or get off the pot." If you look, for example, at this edit from June 15, you can see him clearly stating he's going to take a long break. It simply was not true. Within a week he was "back in the trenches." My mention of NoSeptember's "Leaving" essay was no mistake.

It's rather silly to call "simply not true" or even worse, "dishonest" when somebody makes unrealistic plans about the future and then fails to carry them out. Even if it's repeated. How many people do you know who've told others that they plan to do something by tomorrow, or next week, and fail repleatedly to meet their own self-imposed deadline? "Self-imposed" being a key issue, here. You're not Rootology's boss, and I fail to see why you think you should be able to hold him accountable like he was a self-excusing employee of yours. If he announces publicly a self-imposed deadline which he doesn't meet, this gives you, the reader, no entitlement at all. Except maybe the right to say you've seen such language before you'll believe it when you see it. But that's all. "Lying" is not a part of this.

Now, is Rootology's problem poor time-management, or addictive behavior? Dunno. Doesn't matter. Either way it's his problem, not yours. Since, again, he is a volunteer who does not work for you. Does not even volunteer for you.

If you know what I'm sayin'. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I never meant to suggest that he worked for me. It certainly wasn't my intention and if I did, I apologize.

That said, the "I'm a volunteer" line isn't applicable here. He's free to edit every minute or twice a year. I don't care what he spends his time on. I do care if he consistently posts about how he's got "one foot out the door" when he really doesn't. I do care if he disrupts his user talk page to shout about... whatever he's angry about at that particular moment.

I'm not asking for him to banned or blocked or punished. I just want him to stop the antics. His behavior annoys me, as I said. It's not a huge deal, but if it seems like I have a beef (again, I don't), that's the backstory. Agree or disagree, it makes little difference to me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I guess I might have found Rootology annoying if I were an open editing fundamentalist.

This line made me laugh a bit. You signed up for Wikipedia. I'm not sure you should expect much else. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

I guess I might have found Rootology annoying if I were an open editing fundamentalist.

This line made me laugh a bit. You signed up for Wikipedia. I'm not sure you should expect much else. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

MZMcBride, most people (in the United States, anyway) believe in God. In some sense these people believe that God has a plan for the world, or even a plan for each one of us. Some argue that this belief is foolish, reckless, or wishful, but I tend to disagree. The majority of believers are benign and even beneficent. When they see living people hurt, they don't just praise God and repeat their mantras. Most believers will remove someone from a harmful situation and accept effective medical care. Only fundamentalists deny blood transfusions and immunizations in favor of "God's plan."

I believe in collaborative editing (and I probably have for longer than you). Wikipedia is an amazing project, and I do believe that its content tends to improve with collaborative attention. But when I see a person defamed and vandalized, my belief in the almighty Wiki takes the back seat. Our first priority should be to stop the bleeding. The Wiki's plan can work without one BLP, and it can even work without giving unaccountable users the opportunity to mar BLPs, templates, or even Rootology's talk page.