QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:17pm)
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.
Rootology retires
Nerd Rootology retires 
