Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Admin retirements _ Rootology retires

Posted by: Nerd

Complete with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/Wikipedia_is_broken_and_failing essay on why Wikipedia is apparently broken and failing.

Posted by: Kato

There is a forum here called "Editors", you know.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:23am) *

There is a forum here called "Editors", you know.


As Rootology is an admin who retired, I figured I'd use the most appropriate forum this time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:23pm) *
There is a forum here called "Editors", you know.
This is in the "Admin retirements" forum, where it belongs. Not sure why that forum's in "Bureaucracy", rather than "Editors", mind you.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Who the f**k cares? The guy was a clown and this essay shows that he needs to spend more time engaging in reality.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:33am) *

Who the f**k cares? The guy was a clown and this essay shows that he needs to spend more time engaging in reality.


I care! Rootology brought a lot to Wikipedia and his depature is detrimental to its future success.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:59pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:33am) *

Who the f**k cares? The guy was a clown and this essay shows that he needs to spend more time engaging in reality.


I care! Rootology brought a lot to Wikipedia and his depature is detrimental to its future success.


Nothing wrong with Root that being away from Wikipedia won't cure. I wish him well.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:59pm) *


I care!


You are a sweet person. No sarcasm intended -- that statement was sincere and I respect you for it.

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:59pm) *

Rootology brought a lot to Wikipedia and his depature is detrimental to its future success.


Now I can revert to being the horse from hell -- no single person or equine is indispensable to Wikipedia's success. Although losing eye candy like Lara or Steve Smith would make things a lot less entertaining. However, Wikipedia will stagger and sputter without Root, just as it did while he was with us.

Posted by: EricBarbour

He actually isn't a bad guy--he always seemed levelheaded, and never caused
oceans of tedious and embarrassing dramah, unlike some other hardcore admins.

That's how it works. The crazies force out the decent people, then the whole damn
thing falls apart when the crazies take over (and inevitably fight among themselves).

It's just a big BBS. With money and fame. yecch.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I dunno about the "always levelheaded" nonsense -- you should see the curious email he sent me back in January when he was up for adminship. I though the whole situation then was a little weird.

That said, I'm glad to see that he seems to have rejected the Wikicult's teachings this time around; perhaps he'll learn to stay away for good this time.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:21am) *

Complete with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/Wikipedia_is_broken_and_failing essay on why Wikipedia is apparently broken and failing.


He's still an admin, and he uses "we" too often in his essay for me to consider him a former wikipedian. He'll be back, just like Giano.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 14th July 2009, 11:03pm) *
He's still an admin, and he uses "we" too often in his essay for me to consider him a former wikipedian. He'll be back, just like Giano.
Without commenting on the merits of your prediction, the reason he uses "we" in the essay is because he wrote it before deciding to quit.

Posted by: sbrown

Whats he doing on Commons? Hes an admin there but has made no edits in months.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rootology

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:47am) *

Whats he doing on Commons? Hes an admin there but has made no edits in months.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rootology

What's he doing? I think you just answered your own question: Nothing.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:53am) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:47am) *

Whats he doing on Commons? Hes an admin there but has made no edits in months.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rootology

What's he doing? I think you just answered your own question: Nothing.


And "nothing" is acceptable according to the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section.



Posted by: Moulton

It's a good and thoughtful essay. It would be worthwhile if many more seasoned Wikipedians engaged in such reflective thinking and review.

It's unlikely that Wikipedia will right itself and evolve to a functional 21st Century governance structure, but one by one, disillusioned Wikipedians can individually learn and explain in their own words why Wikipedia operates under an ill-conceived, tragically failed and unsustainable model.

Posted by: everyking

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:57am) *

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif


You can be kind of vindictive, can't you?

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:57pm) *

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif

You just get more and more annoying. Go expand Ashlee Simpson. Take her back to FA... doesn't she deseve it? If you really loved her, you'd care enough to make it happen.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:57pm) *

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif

You just get more and more annoying. Go expand Ashlee Simpson. Take her back to FA... doesn't she deseve it? If you really loved her, you'd care enough to make it happen.


Are you officially advising me in your capacity as a member of the Advisory Council? If so, do you mind if I reciprocate with some advice of my own? It will have to be unofficial advice, because I don't have a title, but I think it's pretty good advice anyway. I think you should go write some content--you pick the article. I looked through your last 100 contributions and only found one article edit, and that one was to nominate an article for deletion. Are you sure your advice is going to be well-grounded if you aren't out there actively editing articles? I don't want the ArbCom to be getting bad advice, you know! laugh.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:48pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:57pm) *

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif

You just get more and more annoying. Go expand Ashlee Simpson. Take her back to FA... doesn't she deseve it? If you really loved her, you'd care enough to make it happen.


Are you officially advising me in your capacity as a member of the Advisory Council? If so, do you mind if I reciprocate with some advice of my own? It will have to be unofficial advice, because I don't have a title, but I think it's pretty good advice anyway. I think you should go write some content--you pick the article. I looked through your last 100 contributions and only found one article edit, and that one was to nominate an article for deletion. Are you sure your advice is going to be well-grounded if you aren't out there actively editing articles? I don't want the ArbCom to be getting bad advice, you know! laugh.gif
I actually noted that same thing last night myself. Although, last night I had two article edits in my last 100, and one was to nominate an article for deletion.

Anyway, crybaby... No, this wasn't me "officially advising" you in my "capacity as a member of the Advisory Council". This was simply me, on WR, pointing out how annoying you are. I thought that was clear, but you guys opposing the think-tank have a bit of an issue with exaggerating and using hyperbole to get your points across. Understandable, considering you're opposing a think-tank and all. laugh.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

Seeing Rootology leave immediately brought to mind User:NoSeptember/Leaving and WP:DIVA.

In this thread, EricBarbour says Rootology "never caused oceans of tedious and embarrassing dramah."

He deleted the pages in his user space, wrote a user space essay and redirected his user page there, fully protected his talk page (with a dramatic protection summary), and placed {{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Retired}} at the top. It was certainly dramatic by any reasonable person's standards and I was certainly embarrassed by his childish behavior.

Was his retirement in itself an "ocean" of drama? No. For the full body of water, you would need to look at his contributions over the past few months, especially in the project namespace.

One might argue that it's acceptable to behave like this if it's a true retirement, but does anyone honestly believe that it is?

Posted by: One

MZMcBride and Everyking criticize Rootology for being "dramatic." Interesting.

He's got a great essay there. I'll miss him.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:28pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:48pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:57pm) *

Although Rootology has retired, he gets to keep the honorary title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Former_members of the Advisory Council. I seem to recall that his short-lived Advisory Council work mainly involved slagging off people like me, arguing that we were only opposed to the Council because we had been sanctioned in the past, and telling us that we were all doomed unless we accepted the ArbCom's edicts--so of course it's important to recognize his contributions to setting the tone and style of this new body's work! laugh.gif

You just get more and more annoying. Go expand Ashlee Simpson. Take her back to FA... doesn't she deseve it? If you really loved her, you'd care enough to make it happen.


Are you officially advising me in your capacity as a member of the Advisory Council? If so, do you mind if I reciprocate with some advice of my own? It will have to be unofficial advice, because I don't have a title, but I think it's pretty good advice anyway. I think you should go write some content--you pick the article. I looked through your last 100 contributions and only found one article edit, and that one was to nominate an article for deletion. Are you sure your advice is going to be well-grounded if you aren't out there actively editing articles? I don't want the ArbCom to be getting bad advice, you know! laugh.gif
I actually noted that same thing last night myself. Although, last night I had two article edits in my last 100, and one was to nominate an article for deletion.

Anyway, crybaby... No, this wasn't me "officially advising" you in my "capacity as a member of the Advisory Council". This was simply me, on WR, pointing out how annoying you are. I thought that was clear, but you guys opposing the think-tank have a bit of an issue with exaggerating and using hyperbole to get your points across. Understandable, considering you're opposing a think-tank and all. laugh.gif


I was referencing your title and official duties for the purposes of sarcasm, not because I actually believed you might be advising in me in your official capacity.

Posted by: LaraLove

Oh, let's be real. It was dramatic. And he'll be back.

Nothing new here. Happens all the time. Doesn't matter. So move along, we've got shit to do and we're a man down.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 3:38pm) *

Oh, let's be real. It was dramatic. And he'll be back.

Nothing new here. Happens all the time. Doesn't matter. So move along, we've got shit to do and we're a man down.


I second that. And thank goodness it was some dull idiot who did nothing. It would have been awful to lose an intense in-your-face neurotic clown of the Guy Chapman/Uncle G/Tanthalas39/Durova/WMC school of fools. Hell, we can afford to lose 20 Rootologys -- but if we lose Uncle G, it will be a tragedy.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 3:30pm) *

fully protected his talk page (with a dramatic protection summary), and placed {{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Retired}} at the top.


I guess all that explanation to him about why admins should not semi-protect their talk pages even if they aren't currently active went in one ear and out the other.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 3:33pm) *

MZMcBride and Everyking criticize Rootology for being "dramatic." Interesting.

He's got a great essay there. I'll miss him.

Says the person who (dramatically) plots takeovers and revolutions on this site. smile.gif

You can't miss a person who hasn't left. Perhaps Rootology is really leaving for good, but we can't possibly know that for sure. The fact that he has already resumed editing seems like a pretty strong indication, though.

P. S. I hadn't noticed the blanking and protection of his Editor review and his Request for adminship. I think this exit is the new standard-bearer for dramatic goodbyes. Good grief.

Posted by: One

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

Posted by: LaraLove

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?

Someone has to have a beef with another in order to be bemused or annoyed by the dramatic and unnecessary way they choose to attempt to depart the project? I don't think so.

I'm all about going out in protest and drawing some attention to your cause, don't get me wrong. BTDT, but it's sort of silly to do these sorts of things so often. Being dramatic is best when infrequent, otherwise, you're not really "being dramatic" after a while... rather, you're just being you.

Of course, by "you", I don't necessarily mean you.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:33pm) *

MZMcBride and Everyking criticize Rootology for being "dramatic." Interesting.

He's got a great essay there. I'll miss him.

To be clear, I'll miss him too--he was a good editor, and he was particularly valuable in discussions on governance matters because he recognized very clearly that the project needs reform. Unfortunately, he got the idea that the ArbCom, rather than the community, could or should be the driving force behind reform. I'd love to see him back, but not as a member of the advisory council.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:24pm) *

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?

Someone has to have a beef with another in order to be bemused or annoyed by the dramatic and unnecessary way they choose to attempt to depart the project? I don't think so.

I'm all about going out in protest and drawing some attention to your cause, don't get me wrong. BTDT, but it's sort of silly to do these sorts of things so often. Being dramatic is best when infrequent, otherwise, you're not really "being dramatic" after a while... rather, you're just being you.

Of course, by "you", I don't necessarily mean you.
I agree with that last point. Should be a limit on "retiring."

Just wondering because MZM was also all over Rootology's noindexing thing, and (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.

Posted by: gelugor

QUOTE
I agree with that last point. Should be a limit on "retiring."


This isn't the first time Rootology has done something dramatic, has he? He's going to be back eventually, whether it's a day, a week, or a month or two.


Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:26pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:24pm) *

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?

Someone has to have a beef with another in order to be bemused or annoyed by the dramatic and unnecessary way they choose to attempt to depart the project? I don't think so.

I'm all about going out in protest and drawing some attention to your cause, don't get me wrong. BTDT, but it's sort of silly to do these sorts of things so often. Being dramatic is best when infrequent, otherwise, you're not really "being dramatic" after a while... rather, you're just being you.

Of course, by "you", I don't necessarily mean you.
I agree with that last point. Should be a limit on "retiring."

Just wondering because MZM was also all over Rootology's noindexing thing, and (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.

I'll try to refrain from answering the question you asked that I not answer. But in response to the semi-protection "incident" in particular, I think it's important to point out that one of Rootology's arguments for semi-protecting his own talk page was that he was "just about to go on a long break" (paraphrased). This was in late June. I think that's a pretty good example of why my frustration with Rootology has been growing. Read into that whatever you will.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:35pm) *

I'll try to refrain from answering the question you asked that I not answer.

No, feel free to answer. I only asked if others knew in case you weren't willing.

Posted by: gelugor

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:35pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:26pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:24pm) *

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?

Someone has to have a beef with another in order to be bemused or annoyed by the dramatic and unnecessary way they choose to attempt to depart the project? I don't think so.

I'm all about going out in protest and drawing some attention to your cause, don't get me wrong. BTDT, but it's sort of silly to do these sorts of things so often. Being dramatic is best when infrequent, otherwise, you're not really "being dramatic" after a while... rather, you're just being you.

Of course, by "you", I don't necessarily mean you.
I agree with that last point. Should be a limit on "retiring."

Just wondering because MZM was also all over Rootology's noindexing thing, and (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.

I'll try to refrain from answering the question you asked that I not answer. But in response to the semi-protection "incident" in particular, I think it's important to point out that one of Rootology's arguments for semi-protecting his own talk page was that he was "just about to go on a long break" (paraphrased). This was in late June. I think that's a pretty good example of why my frustration with Rootology has been growing. Read into that whatever you will.


Well seeing how he's now fully "retired", wasn't announcing a long break just pussyfooting? Oh, and he edited as if nothing happened after his first announcement.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:26pm) *


Just wondering because MZM ... (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.

It's pretty simple (and has nothing specifically to do with rootology) - I just think admins (and editors in general) should be accountable to users, including IPs and new users. Semi-protection (and, by extension, full-protection) of an administrators' user talk page without justification and a history of severe abuse (as exists in at least some of the "dozens of admins" you mention) is thus inappropriate and runs counter to the protection policy.

...and I am still astonished that a sitting arbitrator thinks it's completely fine because it's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=298797231&oldid=298796986".

(Which, of course, it isn't. It belongs to the community.)

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:26pm) *

I agree with that last point. Should be a limit on "retiring."

Just wondering because MZM was also all over Rootology's noindexing thing, and (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.
MZ takes a strict stance on protection in all cases.

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:43pm) *

It's pretty simple (and has nothing specifically to do with rootology) - I just think admins (and editors in general) should be accountable to users, including IPs and new users. Semi-protection (and, by extension, full-protection) of an administrators' user talk page without justification and a history of severe abuse (as exists in at least some of the "dozens of admins" you mention) is thus inappropriate and runs counter to the protection policy.

...and I am still astonished that a sitting arbitrator thinks it's completely fine because it's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=298797231&oldid=298796986".

(Which, of course, it isn't. It belongs to the community.)
That pretty well blew me away, too. I think Luke is the only arb you'll see making such comments on- or off- wiki. At least, he's the only one I've seen do so.

And I hate that "your talk page belongs to the community" line. Right, whatever. I get that a lot, too. Let the civility police try to enforce something on my talk page.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:43pm) *

It's pretty simple (and has nothing specifically to do with rootology) - I just think admins (and editors in general) should be accountable to users, including IPs and new users. Semi-protection (and, by extension, full-protection) of an administrators' user talk page without justification and a history of severe abuse (as exists in at least some of the "dozens of admins" you mention) is thus inappropriate and runs counter to the protection policy.

...and I am still astonished that a sitting arbitrator thinks it's completely fine because it's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=298797231&oldid=298796986".

(Which, of course, it isn't. It belongs to the community.)

I didn't realize you were Xeno. Out of curiosity, how many other admins with semi-protected pages have either of you harassed since then?

At any rate, Rootology has just informed me that he really has retired--saying farewell on the ACPD pages hardly counts as resumed editing. I find his announcement more credible than, say, Giano, who has a track record. Rootology quit this place cold turkey, after all. I hope it's just a long absence, but right now he seems to mean it.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:30pm) *

Seeing Rootology leave immediately brought to mind User:NoSeptember/Leaving and WP:DIVA.


Funny how several on that list have retired. For real.

And yeah, he blanked his editor review and RFA and fully protected them. The only thing that achieves is DRAMA. No one even cared about either of those pages until he suddenly did that. Pointless.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:19pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:30pm) *

Seeing Rootology leave immediately brought to mind User:NoSeptember/Leaving and WP:DIVA.


Funny how several on that list have retired. For real.

And yeah, he blanked his editor review and RFA and fully protected them. The only thing that achieves is DRAMA. No one even cared about either of those pages until he suddenly did that. Pointless.


Well, I care about all old RFAs, but I am weird that way.

Posted by: MZMcBride

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rootology&diff=prev&oldid=296604491 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. 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 {{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: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.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:35pm) *
...when someone writes something and then links to it (in bright red) in their user signature, it starts to irritate me.

It's only irritating if you disagree to the screed being linked to, isn't it? Also, "shove it down the throat" would mean leaving messages on people's talk pages demanding that they read whatever-it-is. Linking it from a signature is more like "waving it around in a flag-like fashion." Remember, these are metaphors.

QUOTE
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.

Definitely your perspective - he's been on about that for a good two or three years, by my reckoning...

QUOTE
The same general themes were true of his "Paid editing" and "Wikipedia Committees" crusades.

Ehh... The "paid editing" thing wasn't a crusade, it was more of an "everyone is fed up with the amount of hypocrisy we've seen on this issue" sort of affair. The business about the committees - that was his proposal to split the ArbCom into three parts, right? It may have been a crusade, but I actually thought it was a reasonable idea. And again, it shows that he's been trying to do something about WP governance issues for at least a year-and-a-half or so.

QUOTE
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.

Not fair - he hardly steps into every such dispute, and you could just as easily be pissed because you didn't think of those things yourself, for all we know.

QUOTE
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...

Now, there I would strongly disagree. No amount of drama, fuss, or bother is too much when trying to point out to anyone still "on the fence" that JoshuaZ is a major detriment and danger to, well, pretty much all of Wikiland. If anything, he should have blanked and replaced the Main Page with it.

QUOTE
("Wikibreaks")...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.

They all do that, though. I'll admit it looks silly, etc., when they keep editing in spite of the notices, but it's so common I don't think anybody (other than you?) even pays attention anymore.

QUOTE
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.

Wasn't that about the fact that __NOINDEX__ doesn't work on articles, because some developer unilaterally decided it shouldn't? Or am I thinking of some other appallingly hypocritical imposed-vaporware thing?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:41pm) *

QUOTE
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.

Wasn't that about the fact that __NOINDEX__ doesn't work on articles, because some developer unilaterally decided it shouldn't? Or am I thinking of some other appallingly hypocritical imposed-vaporware thing?

Only thing I can think of is that he was concerned that user talk pages might not be automatically noindexed in the future. Not a crazy fear either--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_36#Re-enable_searches_in_the_user_talk_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing#Statement_by_Xeno. I tend to noindex my pages whenever I remember.

I guess I might have found Rootology annoying if I were an open editing fundamentalist.
As it is, I'm not and I'll miss him.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:35pm) *

[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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rootology&diff=prev&oldid=296604491 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'. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Kato

Root has a lot of ideas and energy. Most of these ideas, if allowed to prosper, would save Wikipedia a heap of stress.

Root is also in quite a unique position in that he has seen Wikipedia from several different angles. From insider to outside critic. He was important in providing a critic's perspective to a lot of goings on while on WP.

Posted by: Shalom

QUOTE(Nerd @ Wed 15th July 2009, 5:19pm) *

And yeah, he blanked his editor review and RFA and fully protected them. The only thing that achieves is DRAMA. No one even cared about either of those pages until he suddenly did that. Pointless.

I did the same thing and didn't generate a lot of DRAMA because I just can't call much attention to my words even when I try. It's possible that he got the idea to blank his RFA and editor review from me (we had a correspondence off-wiki) but he could have thought of it himself. Honestly nobody cares. As to the hypocrisy of retiring then returning, I've done it several times, and recently started yet another new account (known to some folks here), but never did I say that I was leaving for good and never coming back.

I did say that once on my blog, that I would return once Jimbo and two other users left Wikipedia, but that was in March 2008, and I recanted it a week later, if I recall correctly. Since then I've buried wiki-related blog posts in an area only I can view, and I do not care to view them.

I also did occasionally put "wikibreak" template on my userpage when I was just leaving for the 25 hour Shabbat, but at that time I was so addicted that 25 hours amounted to a significant break. A lot depends on your existing popularity. If you know people are watching you, putting up frequent wikibreak or retirement templates, and flouting them, is mildly disruptive. If you suspect people don't give a darn what you're doing, then it's no harm no foul; but you may eventually come to realize that nobody gives a darn what you're doing, so it's not worth doing.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:52pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:35pm) *

[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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rootology&diff=prev&oldid=296604491 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'. 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. smile.gif

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:51pm) *

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. wink.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:41am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:51pm) *

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. 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.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

<snip>

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.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:45pm) *

I second that. And thank goodness it was some dull idiot who did nothing. It would have been awful to lose an intense in-your-face neurotic clown of the Guy Chapman/Uncle G/Tanthalas39/Durova/WMC school of fools. Hell, we can afford to lose 20 Rootologys -- but if we lose Uncle G, it will be a tragedy.


On May 7, 10 days before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG, he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JzG. He hasn't been seen since, save for one edit to NYB's talk page on May 8.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:41am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:51pm) *

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. 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.

For what it's worth, even a radical like me wants to see FlaggedRevisions at least trialed.

I think that semi-protection is poorly written software that should be deprecated as soon as possible. I'd much rather see something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection implemented. It's a much smarter solution than a blanket and arbitrary ban on anonymous users or users with less than ten edits and four days since registration.

As I've said to you previously, I think a part of Wikipedia's success has come from the idea of open editing. If there are reasons to protect a page (libel, very high visibility, etc.), the pages definitely should be protected. But going around protecting pages willy-nilly is a bad idea and it goes against Wikipedia's core principles.

You're an Arbitrator, which gives you a bit of clout and leverage with the community. Why not try to implement stronger notability guidelines, with a special focus on porn stars and criminals? Trying to ban all anonymous editing is just a waste of time. Regardless of what you or I think, it will never happen. But raising the notability threshold, that's something that's reasonably doable.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:41pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:35pm) *

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.

Wasn't that about the fact that __NOINDEX__ doesn't work on articles, because some developer unilaterally decided it shouldn't? Or am I thinking of some other appallingly hypocritical imposed-vaporware thing?

Having Barack Obama no longer appear in search engine esults because a vandal added __NOINDEX__ to some obscure template isn't a particularly good thing. If the subject of an article isn't notable, delete his or her biography. If there are persistent problems with an article, protect it or block the disrupters. Sweeping it under the mat is a silly solution.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:54pm) *
Having Barack Obama no longer appear in search engine esults because a vandal added __NOINDEX__ to some obscure template isn't a particularly good thing.

Not true!

Do we know for a fact that __NOINDEX__ in a template affects any page on which the template appears? If so, then it's a rather misguided, if not poor, implementation - it should only affect pages on which it appears in the actual WikiML for the page.

QUOTE
If the subject of an article isn't notable, delete his or her biography.

If only they would... unhappy.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:54pm) *

If the subject of an article isn't notable, delete his or her biography.

If only they would... unhappy.gif
So true.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:19am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:54pm) *

If the subject of an article isn't notable, delete his or her biography.

If only they would... unhappy.gif
So true.


It's one of those statements that everyone can agree on but really means nothing at all. Nobody wants to keep biographies about people they believe to be non-notable.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:50pm) *
It's one of those statements that everyone can agree on but really means nothing at all. Nobody wants to keep biographies about people they believe to be non-notable.

Except the person(s) who wrote the article, the person(s) who are fans of the subject of the article, the person(s) who hate the subject of the article, the person(s) who went to the trouble of finding (or stealing) a photo to illustrate the article, and of course, User:JoshuaZ.

Have you been drinking, EK? I thought you were a tea-totaler. hmmm.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:56am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:50pm) *
It's one of those statements that everyone can agree on but really means nothing at all. Nobody wants to keep biographies about people they believe to be non-notable.

Except the person(s) who wrote the article, the person(s) who are fans of the subject of the article, the person(s) who hate the subject of the article, the person(s) who went to the trouble of finding (or stealing) a photo to illustrate the article, and of course, User:JoshuaZ.

Have you been drinking, EK? I thought you were a tea-totaler. hmmm.gif
I think the key word in Everyking's post was "they believe to be". All of the people you list above presumably believe that the subject is notable.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:54pm) *
Having Barack Obama no longer appear in search engine esults because a vandal added __NOINDEX__ to some obscure template isn't a particularly good thing.

Not true!

Do we know for a fact that __NOINDEX__ in a template affects any page on which the template appears? If so, then it's a rather misguided, if not poor, implementation - it should only affect pages on which it appears in the actual WikiML for the page.

Definitely sure. In fact, the {{NOINDEX}} template is just a wrapper for __NOINDEX__. It's easy to track template usage; http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words like __NOINDEX__ have no tracking mechanism built-in. A user could add it anywhere in any article directly and it's very unlikely anybody would notice.

But the lack of tracking is only part of the issue. The other issue is the underlying principle. The theory is that if content is in a content namespace (as defined in the configuration files), it shouldn't be able to be de-indexed using __NOINDEX__ by any user. It's a view I agree with. Unless we force users to deal with the content, they'll simply slap __NOINDEX__ on it and it will be available via mirrors, the API, and direct searches of Wikipedia's database. If the content is bad, it needs to be properly resolved.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 6:35am) *

Unless we force users to deal with the content, they'll simply slap __NOINDEX__ on it and it will be available via mirrors, the API, and direct searches of Wikipedia's database. If the content is bad, it needs to be properly resolved.

Many mirrors are rarely if ever updated. One bad content gets in them its stuck. And thats one of the great problems we have.


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 9:50pm) *

It's one of those statements that everyone can agree on but really means nothing at all. Nobody wants to keep biographies about people they believe to be non-notable.

That's like saying we don't have a problem with crime because few people do things they themselves believe are actually wrong. bored.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:54pm) *

Having Barack Obama no longer appear in search engine esults because a vandal added __NOINDEX__ to some obscure template isn't a particularly good thing.


Nor a particularly bad thing. The world will still spin on its axis. The lack of a BLP for Barack Obama on WP is so completely an example of a non-problem in the world that does not scream for a fix in any way, that it's hard for me to think of a more eggregious example.

Bio information on dead-tree important subjects is always superfluous when on Wikipedia-- it's available more accurately with ease, elsewhere. Bio information on live subjects who are so much less famous that it IS more difficult to dig up info on them (though not impossible), is a harm, because it's invasive of privacy. The middle between those extremes is so thin that I suspect it doesn't exist for people who don't want to be biographied.

Allowing BLP only for people who give permission would take care of this (for a Who's Who-type market might exist there), but WMF has no plans ever to do that. That would be a hard job involving the identification of living persons and their actual wishs in the real world, and WMF doesn't do hard jobs that can't be parcelled out to volunteers who work for free. And this one can't be. ermm.gif

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 5:03pm) *


Out of curiosity, how many other admins with semi-protected pages have either of you harassed since then?

Out of curiousity, have you stopped beating your wife?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:15am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

<snip>

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.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

Root's use of the page, which MZM admits was dramatic, was posted on WR and looked like a troll/privacy violation magnet. Such a page is only tangentially related to our project anyhow, especially considering that Root was not doing much article editing or blocking. It struck me as a good enough reason to semiprotect it, and you'll note that Casliber agreed.

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=25061&view=findpost&p=180452"

I'm not fond of people who complain about others "hijacking" their own user page; people delete comments, decorate, and express themselves however they please. Unless they're using their page for actually inciting others, I think the "community" is best off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=prev&oldid=301761106. If it was so annoying, MZM could have, y'know, looked at one of the other 3+ million pages on Wikipedia. The fact that MZM and Xeno have not harassed any users since seems to confirm my suspicion that they were singling Rootology out for unrelated reasons (perhaps because of how "annoying" he was). For reference, here's a list of admins with semi-protected pages not harassed by Xeno and MZM:

Alison
Avraham
Bastique
Chris G
DaGizza
Deckiller
Deiz
Dominic
Francs2000
Hermione1980
Jéské Couriano
Jpgordon
Keilana
Kwsn
Luna Santin
Marine 69-71
MBK004
Ohnoitsjamie
Persian Poet Gal
PMDrive1061
Risker
SchuminWeb
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
SlimVirgin
Stwalkerster
Thatcher
The JPS
The-G-Unit-Boss

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:30pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:15am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

<snip>

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.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

Root's use of the page, which MZM admits was dramatic, was posted on WR and looked like a troll/privacy violation magnet. Such a page is only tangentially related to our project anyhow, especially considering that Root was not doing much article editing or blocking. It struck me as a good enough reason to semiprotect it, and you'll note that Casliber agreed.

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=25061&view=findpost&p=180452"

I'm not fond of people who complain about others "hijacking" their own user page; people delete comments, decorate, and express themselves however they please. Unless they're using their page for actually inciting others, I think the "community" is best off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=prev&oldid=301761106. If it was so annoying, MZM could have, y'know, looked at one of the other 3+ million pages on Wikipedia. The fact that MZM and Xeno have not harassed any users since seems to confirm my suspicion that they were singling Rootology out for unrelated reasons (perhaps because of how "annoying" he was). For reference, here's a list of admins with semi-protected pages not harassed by Xeno and MZM:

Alison
Avraham
Bastique
Chris G
DaGizza
Deckiller
Deiz
Dominic
Francs2000
Hermione1980
Jéské Couriano
Jpgordon
Keilana
Kwsn
Luna Santin
Marine 69-71
MBK004
Ohnoitsjamie
Persian Poet Gal
PMDrive1061
Risker
SchuminWeb
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
SlimVirgin
Stwalkerster
Thatcher
The JPS
The-G-Unit-Boss


...not semi-protected anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Xeno&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1

Posted by: Apathetic

Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries sometimes. (edited from "an awful lot" to "sometimes")

Some of those users have an anon talk page in compliance with the protection policy.

Some are victims of severe and protected harassment.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:05pm) *
Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.
Or maybe he has, in his wisdom, decided that indefinite semi-protection is inappaopriate, and by not checking with him you're being something of a shithead?

QUOTE
Some of those users have an anon talk page in compliance with the protection policy.

Some are victims of severe and protected harassment.
Quite apart from the question of who's "protecting" harassment, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of your blanket unprotections?

Edit: Oh, I see, you only unprotected fourteen of them. I presume that those would be the ones who haven't been the victims of protected harassment? Though I've got PersianPoetGal's page watchlisted for some reason or another, and I can promise you she's gotten a lot of harassment there. Not sure whether or not it's of the protected variety.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:02pm) *

...not semi-protected anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Xeno&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1

I honestly did not expect that to happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200907161508&target=Xeno is something.

I apologize: you weren't singling Rootology out. It was apparently just on your mind last month due to being posted on WR.

I think your stance is unreasonable, but I trust that some others will soon be making that argument.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:05pm) *
Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.
Or maybe he has, in his wisdom, decided that indefinite semi-protection is inappaopriate, and by not checking with him you're being something of a shithead?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.delanoy#Expiries_on_semi-protections, I think he just forgot, or it was a slip of the mouse.

(n.b. quoted text above was amended in the original from "an awful lot" to "sometimes")

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:07am) *


Edit: Oh, I see, you only unprotected fourteen of them. I presume that those would be the ones who haven't been the victims of protected harassment? Though I've got PersianPoetGal's page watchlisted for some reason or another, and I can promise you she's gotten a lot of harassment there. Not sure whether or not it's of the protected variety.


Indeed, I didn't "mass unprotect", I carefully reviewed each protection and the disruption that preceded it and made and administrative decision in line with our protection policy.

From UT:Persian Poet Gal:
Administrators, please do not protect my user talk page. When I feel it is necessary I will instate it. Thank you! happy.gif (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Persian_Poet_Gal/Why_I_No_Longer_Protect...)

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:02pm) *

...not semi-protected anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Xeno&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1

I apologize: you weren't singling Rootology out. It was apparently just on your mind last month due to being posted on WR.

I think your stance is unreasonable, but I trust that some others will soon be making that argument.


Thank you for recognizing this. (I'll also appreciate you not using terms like "harass", that would be bothering without a purpose).

FWIW, you may think it's unreasonable, but it has been my stance all along, see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_9#Indefinitely_semi-protected_user_talk_pages:_should_policy_require_an_unprotected_subpage.3F.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 10:05am) *

Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.


Don't pick on J.delanoy, you big hairy bully. Why don't you pick on someone your own size?

Let me know how tall you are and how much you weigh -- that will make it easier to find someone for you to pick on.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:19am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 10:05am) *

Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.


Don't pick on J.delanoy, you big hairy bully. Why don't you pick on someone your own size?

Let me know how tall you are and how much you weigh -- that will make it easier to find someone for you to pick on.

Sorry, I amended it from "an awful lot" to "sometimes". It wasn't a lot, it was just a handful.

Besides, in terms of admin actions, J.delanoy is a giant! Much bigger than me =)

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:21pm) *

Besides, in terms of admin actions, J.delanoy is a giant! Much bigger than me =)


You still hold the lead in protection modification however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGACTIONS#Protection_modifications

Posted by: One

Personally, I find horses big, hairy, and terrifying.

#19-23 on undeletions are all WR members including me, MZM, and Xeno.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:26am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:21pm) *

Besides, in terms of admin actions, J.delanoy is a giant! Much bigger than me =)


You still hold the lead in protection modification however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGACTIONS#Protection_modifications

Yes, we definitely need more admins willing to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports and modify inappropriate protection lengths. It's tedious work and requires one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xeno/unprotects.

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:26pm) *

Just wondering because MZM was also all over Rootology's noindexing thing, and (along with Xeno), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&oldid=299518202#Pre-emptive_protection.... Seemed like there was some history, but I may be wrong.

Interesting. Xeno just un-semi-protected my talk page, and didn't do me the courtesy of leaving a note. I wonder if he looked at the history of 4chan vandalism my page gets. Ah well, it always amuses me when Grawp finds some /b/tards to play his stupid games, and other folks seem to get a lot more exercised about his antics than I do. I wonder if Xeno will be watching my page while I'm on vacation.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:34am) *

Interesting. [off topic] Xeno just un-semi-protected my talk page, and didn't do me the courtesy of leaving a note. I wonder if he looked at the history of 4chan vandalism my page gets. Ah well, it always amuses me when Grawp finds some /b/tards to play his stupid games, and other folks seem to get a lot more exercised about his antics than I do. I wonder if Xeno will be watching my page while I'm on vacation.

I always keep a close eye on pages I unprotect.

Feel free to reprotect if you're ok having an indefinitely semi-protected talk page (to me, it looked like someone simply forgot to set an expiry), but you ought have an unprotected subpage for anons and IPs.

If it's just /b/ stuff, (childish, absent of outing, etc.) I personally don't think indef is warranted.

(And yes, I did review the vandalism that preceded it. Our Arkum Asylum inmate... )

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:37pm) *

I always keep a close eye on pages I unprotect.

Feel free to reprotect if you're ok having an indefinitely semi-protected talk page (to me, it looked like someone simply forgot to set an expiry), but you ought have an unprotected subpage for anons and IPs.

If it's just /b/ stuff, (childish, absent of outing, etc.) I personally don't think indef is warranted.

(And yes, I did review the vandalism that preceded it. Our Arkum Asylum inmate... )

Whatever. I find these sorts of disputes amusing. The amount of energy spent over semi-protected talk pages, or the possibility of a public discussion forum by vested editors, far outweighs their importance compared to Wikipedia's many real problems.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 10:27am) *

Personally, I find horses big, hairy, and terrifying.


We are. wink.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:30pm) *
Yes, we definitely need more admins willing to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports and modify inappropriate protection lengths.
What's "inappropriate" being, of course, a determination to be made unilaterally by you.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 2:19pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:30pm) *
Yes, we definitely need more admins willing to go through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports and modify inappropriate protection lengths.
What's "inappropriate" being, of course, a determination to be made unilaterally by you.

No, it's defined by the protection policy and past precedent.

"Indefinite" far too often becomes "permanent" because no one bothers to check back on it.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:05pm) *
Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.
Or maybe he has, in his wisdom, decided that indefinite semi-protection is inappaopriate, and by not checking with him you're being something of a shithead?

QUOTE
Some of those users have an anon talk page in compliance with the protection policy.

Some are victims of severe and protected harassment.
Quite apart from the question of who's "protecting" harassment, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of your blanket unprotections?

Edit: Oh, I see, you only unprotected fourteen of them. I presume that those would be the ones who haven't been the victims of protected harassment? Though I've got PersianPoetGal's page watchlisted for some reason or another, and I can promise you she's gotten a lot of harassment there. Not sure whether or not it's of the protected variety.

Elsewhere on WR you recently posted that you'd been increasingly snarky in your comments here and that perhaps you needed a break from posting here. If I were making a list of "Key Indications That a Break is Needed," I think I'd put calling fellow admins "shitheads" somewhere near the top.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:46pm) *
Elsewhere on WR you recently posted that you'd been increasingly snarky in your comments here and that perhaps you needed a break from posting here. If I were making a list of "Key Indications That a Break is Needed," I think I'd put calling fellow admins "shitheads" somewhere near the top.
Fair point. I think I can abstain from further such remarks, but if I can't I'll take that break.

(Also, Xeno, apologies for the remark. It probably wasn't the most constructive way of expressing my objection to your unprotections.)

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:28pm) *
No, it's defined by the protection policy and past precedent.

"Indefinite" far too often becomes "permanent" because no one bothers to check back on it.
Has it occurred to you that "indefinite" protections are sometimes legitimately intended to be definitely permanent?

Posted by: Apathetic

No worries re: the remark.

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:53pm) *


QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:28pm) *
No, it's defined by the protection policy and past precedent.

"Indefinite" far too often becomes "permanent" because no one bothers to check back on it.
Has it occurred to you that "indefinite" protections are sometimes legitimately intended to be definitely permanent?


Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

For the most part, the indefinite protections weren't meant to be permanent, nor were they necessary. Out of 267 articles where I lowered the permanent semi-protected, only 51 had the semi-protection back in place 4 months later. (See User:Xeno/unprotects )

Thanks to MZM for crunching the data on that.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:06pm) *
Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".
Or "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except for a tiny portion of the pages which have been indefinitely semi-protected for good reason and that only account holders with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit"?

Hell, there are plenty of indefinitely semi-protected templates; I presume you have no objection to most of those. That suggests that we agree on the principle, and differ only in degrees.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:10pm) *

Hell, there are plenty of indefinitely semi-protected templates; I presume you have no objection to most of those. That suggests that we agree on the principle, and differ only in degrees.

Plenty of fully protected templates too, but it's unlikely an IP would make a helpful drive-by edit there. I understand the need for liberal protection on templates being that vandalism can be spewed widely and the way caching works it might take a while for it to squid out depending on the size of the job queue.

Note also my edit to the post to which you replied, not sure if you replied prior to seeing it. Many of them were an admin who had a policy of applying indefinite semi-protection along with move=sysop after pagemove vandalism. And also a bunch from before protections could have an expiry. So no, they certainly weren't meant to be permanent.

We've strewn way off topic from root's retirement, so a mod should probably split.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 8:06pm) *

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:23pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 8:06pm) *

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections. (And it's not limited to just protections, IP blocks have the same issue.)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 6:47pm) *
I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections.
It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:49pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 6:47pm) *
I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections.
It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).

I assume you're talking about Ctrl+Alt+Del. I was particularly astonished to find an indefinitely semi-protected article with an indefinitely semi-protected talk page. It's just the kind of subject a drive-by IP might improve.

But I understand there's been some fairly severe abuse on that page, so I don't fault you. A case for flagged protection I guess.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

I'm not in a position to complain, but can't these Wikipediots take their conversation elsewhere blink.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:15am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

<snip>

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.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

<snip>

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=25061&view=findpost&p=180452"

If you weren't making an argument, what were you making with that wall of text?

I already pointed out that I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected. I was simply noting that your whatever was flawed, because you mentioned vandalism where there wasn't any.

Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(One @ Fri 17th July 2009, 7:23am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 8:06pm) *

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.


Yeah, I wonder, who out of 'anyone' does the ability to make 10 edits and 4 days actually exclude or restrict.....
Cas

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Casliber @ Fri 17th July 2009, 2:07am) *

QUOTE(One @ Fri 17th July 2009, 7:23am) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 8:06pm) *

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.


Yeah, I wonder, who out of 'anyone' does the ability to make 10 edits and 4 days actually exclude or restrict.....
Cas

Lazy, impatient, idiots?

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 17th July 2009, 12:32am) *

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:15am) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

<snip>

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.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

<snip>

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=25061&view=findpost&p=180452"

If you weren't making an argument, what were you making with that wall of text?

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:12pm) *

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Haha, right. I like how you've become an epic douchebag after getting on the AC.

At least you're amusing.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:49pm) *
It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).


No, Xeno is just plain rude. You should see him in the admins' cafeteria: pushing his way past people who are standing on line, grabbing food out of trays with his unwashed hands, not paying for his lunch, chasing away people who want to sit at his table. Really scary stuff. wacko.gif

Posted by: Moulton

I dunno about ANYONECANEDIT, but WP is the soap opera that anyone can make a cameo appearance in.

As Hero-Goat Dramas go, there are endless opportunities to play the role of the goat.

The main deficiency is that there are scant venues for singing the tragoidian dithyramb.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 17th July 2009, 12:32pm) *

As Hero-Goat Dramas go, there are endless opportunities to play the role of the goat.

Or the swan, in the case of Zeus/swan dramas. Zeus, of course, being played by the sole founder. wink.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 17th July 2009, 5:37am) *

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:12pm) *

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Haha, right. I like how you've become an epic douchebag after getting on the AC.

At least you're amusing.

You asked a question I just answered. I'm sorry for being frustrated with you.

I don't have an issue with you. I'd wish you'd drop the axe.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Say, what happened to Rootology? I thought this was supposed to be our opportunity to vivisect him.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Fri 17th July 2009, 9:40am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 17th July 2009, 5:37am) *

QUOTE(One @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:12pm) *

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Haha, right. I like how you've become an epic douchebag after getting on the AC.

At least you're amusing.

You asked a question I just answered. I'm sorry for being frustrated with you.

I don't have an issue with you. I'd wish you'd drop the axe.

Mmhmm. Ya right, honey. It ain't just me. My observation about your douchebaggery is not an original one.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 17th July 2009, 2:49pm) *

Say, what happened to Rootology? I thought this was supposed to be our opportunity to vivisect him.

Hm thread drift. And theres never a mod around to stop it.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Thu 16th July 2009, 11:37am) *

I always keep a close eye on pages I unprotect.

Bit of a case study...

Avraham's page was one of the ones I downgraded from permanent semi back on July 16 and, as promised, kept a close eye on it.

Since then, the page was edited by 5 distinct good-faith IPs

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=304266512&oldid=304258488
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=304486880&oldid=304486400
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=311114734&oldid=311089380
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=311120714&oldid=311114968
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=312174091&oldid=311883500

and only just now (nearly 2 months later) was a target of vandalism, and it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avraham&diff=312846143&oldid=312844496.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 17th July 2009, 2:49pm) *

Say, what happened to Rootology? I thought this was supposed to be our opportunity to vivisect him.

He actually stayed retired, contrary to many of your expectations. Although he came out of retirement for one post... a support !vote at EveryKing 6...