Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ta bu shi da yu

final (111/12/3) ending 08:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has been with Wikipedia since June 2004 and has accumulated an impressive 17,288 edits. He was nominated for adminship back in October 2004 and was easily promoted. Unfortunately, he felt that he was neglecting other areas of his life. To the dismay of many, TBSDY decided in March 2005 to leave the project (see Signpost article), and asked to be desysopped. After his Wikibreak, he realized he couldn't stay away, and instead would balance his time on Wikipedia with other demands. On May 18, 2005, he nominated himself for adminship. This nomination was proceeding even better than his previous one; however, a couple of edits (to a featured article of the day) complicated the process ([1] and [2]). A handful of editors switched to oppose, many out of concern that TBSDY's account had been compromised somehow. TBSDY admitted it was he and apologized profusely for the error in judgment (he wanted to demonstrate Wikipedia's self-healing nature); he admitted his mistake and promised not to do it again. His nomination still would have passed, but TBSDY decided to withdraw as he felt he had acted improperly and did not want the episode to mar his return.

A month has now passed and TBSDY continues his excellent work on Wikipedia. He has made a wide variety of contributions, including starting the popular administrators' noticeboard. I know there are many who would love to renominate TBSDY; I consider it an honor to be able to be the one to do it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. I would like first of all be 100% upfront about the whole vandalism thing. Yes, I did this, but I did it as a joke. This is not to excuse my behaviour. I would like to state, for the record, that I'll never do anything so silly ever again. In the meantime, as a show of good faith, I worked on the Windows 2000 and Architecture of Windows 2000, and started the Microsoft notice board, largely to get our coverage of all things Microsoft up to speed. I've also been working on Architecture of Btrieve, which I hope to get to FA status. I guess this is all I can say. I guess some people are going to be hesitant to vote for me, and I understand that. That's not their issue, that's my issue because of past actions. To those people: I'm sorry I let you down, and I'll do my best never to do that again! I promise to be as impartial as possible, to not use admin powers where I am actively editing or have a strong POV (this means no Christianity articles) and to try to treat all people with fairness in performing admin actions.
I guess I need to address Everyking. Everyking, I did my best to try stop an overreaction to your editing of all things Ashlee Simpson. Before I left I sent a note to several administrators urging them to show restraint, and, had I not left Wikipedia for that time period, was going to try to defend you on the ArbCom. You may or may not choose to believe me. With regards to the comment I made about blocking you for a week: OK, I've thought about that and it's possible that this was a little harsh and came across badly. However, the circumstances around that situation was that you were doing some very odd editing, and from memory (sorry, it's getting a little hazy and this was a while ago) the arbcom had made the decision that you were to only make one reversion on Ashlee Simpson. I was merely attempting to enforce this: you should be aware that I wasn't entirely happy with the decision but was doing my best to sort out this situation. I felt, rightly or wrongly, at the time that you needed to be warned about the seriousness of the ArbCom decision. I guess this is all I can say to this. If I have wronged you, I apologise. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support, nominator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Damn you, Knowledge Seeker! I was going to do this tomorrow. Ah well. As big a support as is allowed. smoddy 08:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. In the past month since he withdrew his nomination, he has helped get Windows 2000 and Architecture of Windows 2000 to featured article status. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. He's an excellent editor, and was a great admin too, always willing to look at both sides of any situation, and amenable to persuasion without getting into entrenched positions. He could have continued with his last nomination, but he did the honorable thing and fell on his sword, another plus point. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. I agree with Slim.-gadfium 09:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. I was sure he already was one... --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, I think we can allow someone to make a mistake. He was a great admin in the past, and will be one again in the future. Rje 09:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 09:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support--Jondel 09:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. support again- Grutness...wha? 09:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. support , what, again? Sometimes I wonder if we don't go overboard on this procedure stuff. We all know ta bu shi da yu isn't going turn into tbsdyzilla overnight and "Destroy The Wiki!" Sheesh! Kim Bruning 09:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Welcome back, Ta bu shi da yu. 172 10:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, of course, and I believe your nomination a month ago would have passed in spite of your mistake. Radiant_>|< 10:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Sietse 10:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, of course. --cesarb 10:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Supported last time, support this time too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support -- the wub "?/!" 12:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - Guettarda 12:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support, (well, pending acceptance, of course). Shimgray 12:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support --Scimitar 13:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Of course. TBSDY is one of the most humble people here, and a prolific contributor. -- Netoholic @ 14:12, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  23. Never! Never! He vandalised an article once! JRM · Talk 14:24, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    Oh, I see I placed this vote in the wrong section. I'm too lazy to correct it. JRM · Talk 14:24, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    Please take our processes a little more seriously (or don't vote). — Chameleon 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Quite so. I'll just copy and paste my last vote instead:
    Support Strong support Support. Adminship should be no big deal. Re-granting adminship to someone who was manifestly worth it even less so. I think TBDSY can be excused for thinking he left Wikipedia for good, and if he did think that, the de-adminning is only sensible. JRM · Talk 09:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
    In light of the discussion here, I'm awarding TBSDY one demerit and knocking my vote down to Support again. The vandalism, while it will be the end of the world to some, is not a big deal in my book. But yes—expect to be apologizing for this till the cows come home explode, TBSDY... That's just the way it is over here. JRM · Talk 20:01, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    This is still on the whimsical side, but I hope it passes muster. I'll be inclined to take "our processes" more seriously, as soon as other people start taking them less seriously. JRM · Talk 19:56, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  24. Duh. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support — Trilobite (Talk) 14:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support once again. Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. strongly support - UtherSRG 14:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. —Xezbeth 15:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support SqueakBox 15:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Of course. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Give back to him the place that's always been his. Phils 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Tuf-Kat 16:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support For great wikijustice. --FCYTravis 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Nothing bad's happened in the past month to change my stance from the previous RFA. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, so long as he doesn't take this RfA as permission to go on another vandalism spree ;-) --Carnildo 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Never again! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support It took guts to withdraw from the last RfA. CheekyMonkey 19:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  37. Forshizzle. All opposers are dumdums. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Hedley 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. I assumed he was already too. (Back when I didn't know how to make redirects, he - maybe coincidentally, but it did help a lot - made one that un-orphaned a page I'd created. Good first impression and not made worse...) Schissel : bowl listen 23:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Glad to hear it :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support His statement above shows that he is again ready for adminship. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 00:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. All my support for this fine contributor. --Canderson7 00:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support, but of course, for the umpteenth time : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. TBSDY shouldn't have mucked around with the dalek article, just as nobody should muck around with any article, and yes, daleks deserve a serious article -- but hang on, this wasn't Curtis LeMay let alone Adolf Hitler: daleks are funny, and TBSDY's version of the page made me smile. (If I'd seen it when it was "live", I'd have rushed to revert it to an earlier, informative version, and with a harrumphing message to the perp -- but with a twinge of regret.) Daleks aside, TBSDY is a hard-working guy with excellent judgement. I don't quite follow what he's saying above about Christianity, but anyway his point is that he's going to avoid problems there too. So what, except for one, ahem, error of judgement, is not to like? Support. -- Hoary 05:21, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  44. Support. I accept his explanation for the Dalek incident as a lapse in judgment. --khaosworks 05:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. HKT 05:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support encore. Fire Star 06:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  47. What, again??!? And we're to take processes seriously?!? Exterminate all humour! (Or is that humor?). Wholeheartedly support, of course. Lupo 06:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  48. Absolutely. RadicalSubversiv E 07:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. jni 07:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  50. the Dalek thing? give me a break, that was just funny and hardly even qualifies as vandalism. Plus, he was sincere enough to ask for de-admining during his wikibreak, not something that is done very often. What are you attempting here TBSDY, going down in history as the person elected admin most frequently? :) dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I see, it's all a cunning plan to get into the record book. Not that I meant that humorously...Fire Star
  51. Support. Ghakko 09:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. The guy even takes responsibility for past mistakes rather than taking the interpersonal warfare route, a rare trait amongst Wikipedians. Shem(talk) 09:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support but I think the community's patience would be tested if there is another RfA. JuntungWu 11:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. He sure straightened me out in a hurry, with one swift samurai-swordstroke. I just assumed he was an admin already. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. He wasn't one already? :) -- Arwel 12:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support. Whatever he did, I'm sure this explains it. Alphax τεχ 12:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. Storm in a teacup - should be more like him. SeanMack 12:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support -- objective and fair, my kind of admin. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  59. violet/riga (t) 13:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  60. I oppose strongly, and support mildly. Or is it the other way around (?) — you decide! *wave* El_C 14:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    *bites his tongue* JRM · Talk 14:40, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  61. In the immortal words of Stacey Stillman, "You changed your vote!" Mike H 15:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  62. YES!!! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Did I happen to say yes? Tabu is one of the clearest, kindest and most insightful voices on this crazy site. One little joke...oh, heaven forfend!...and you'd have thought it was the end of the world. Real trolls don't get excoriated like he did. I knew there was a good reason that I listened to the little voice egging me on to return as an active editor. When the keys to the closet are returned to Tabu, I owe that voice a drink. Bottoms up!! - Lucky 6.9 15:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  63. Again: WWTBSDYD? Golbez 18:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support Jtkiefer 19:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Ingoolemo talk 20:00, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  66. Support. Please stay this time. Your calm is legendary and has brought the project much good. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. TBSDY was a fine admin before and I find no reason to think that he should not have his adminship back. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  68. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, ADMINSHIP SUPPORTS YOU! Vodka! Vodka today? Project2501a 22:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support--Duk 01:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support- JCarriker 02:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support Strongly! Waerth 04:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  72. Support, support and support. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  73. I'm not sure even more Support votes are needed, but I'll add mine anyway. Stewart Adcock 12:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  74. Support Tabs – A little late on this one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  75. Support - Tεxτurε 21:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support strongly. I can't understand what all the fuss is about. I've made errors of judgement, as have the great majority of admins, and to expect TBSDY3 to be an exception is totally unreasonable. David Cannon 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support, dammit! - David Gerard 22:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  78. Support. He's a nice guy, and I don't think lightning falls twice in the same spot. Cctoide 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  79. Support. Again. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  80. Welcome back! Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  81. Support - Josh Parris ✉ 00:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  82. Support TBSDY of course. Welcome back. Heidi & Joe will be watching you as usual. You have helped us round out our opinion about this project in the past and as an Admin you will continue to teach by your example. hydnjo talk 02:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  83. Support - Do the oppose people realize he has over 17,000 edits, and only one or two lapses that were not even malicious? If he hadn't withdrawn his adminship voluntarily, he would be an admin by default. And what he did would not have gotten him desysoped. With the recent departure of RickK over a minor infraction, I fear we're eating our own young here. Sheesh. Fuzheado | Talk 04:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  84. Support TBSDY. — mark ✎ 07:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  85. James F. (talk) 10:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  86. support See if he can get the 105 votes needed to make a new record! --Wonderfool t(c)e) 13:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No sock puppets allowed. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  87. Yes, for the third time now, Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  88. Support. Regardless what has happened recently, if he hadn't asked to be desysopped, he'd still be one. --Kbdank71 19:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    That's not a good argument, because that is only due to a flaw in the system. There should be a simple and common procedure to remove adminship from people who commit vandalism or other transgressions. — Chameleon 09:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Further reading for people interested in these (and alternative) ideas: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, Wikipedia:Super-user, Wikipedia:User access levels. JRM · Talk 10:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  89. Support Sango123 20:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  90. Support. Too easy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  91. Support. - Mustafaa 03:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  92. 擁戴. 魚不太大. 群螞蟻
  93. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 07:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  94. Support -- Stereotek 08:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  95. Support -- This is good time to come back. First edit in a while for me, a pleasue to give it to tabu. However, it seems that tabu has been wasting a lot of our time, with the whole first 2 wp:rfa's, then the big "goodbye" affair, the whole "welcome back" saga et al. But this man is the popularest dude on here. So Go on, sir, edit with your steely knife --Newnoise 11:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  96. Hedley 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  97. Support, again. JYolkowski // talk 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  98. Very strong support -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  99. I believe that few admins could get redadmined after having served for some time. You get involved in many things and inevtiably you make some bad choices. TBSDY's recent FA is enough for me to vote yes. This link is Broken 02:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  100. Support. While the edits in question were thoughtless and show some questionable judgement, on the whole they pale in comparison to the good edits tabu has made. And it is clear a lesson has been learned. Welcome back. - Taxman Talk 03:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  101. Bah! I don't get to be number 100. Nuts to you, Taxman! On a more serious note, TBSDY is an excellent Wikipedian; I'll take someone who can admit a mistake any day over someone who hasn't made any yet. Isomorphic 04:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  102. Support! Squash 07:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  103. Full, strong support. Andre (talk) 20:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  104. 100% support. A first-rate editor who needs to have a mop and bucket. Harro5 23:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  105. Hey, i guess he pips the other dude at the post then. A "privilige" to be no. 105, at least as far as Wonderfoom is concerned --Expurgator 02:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) ( I'm pretty sure that this voter is Wonderfool after a few glasses of whatever. ;-) hydnjo talk 17:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) )
  106. Support Go do your thing! Marine 69-71 04:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  107. Support. Just what a Wikipedian should be! --Dmcdevit 04:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  108. Support AlistairMcMillan 22:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  109. Happy to support a great user, and please note that with this very vote of mine, Ta bu Shi Da Yu now equals the previous RFA record of 109 support votes (and is obviously going to break it)! I was hoping I'd get to do this. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  110. Support - please note, with this vote, TBSDY now has the record for RfA support votes. – ABCD 01:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  111. Not that he needs it, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to give him my support. :) -- Hadal 04:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly oppose. Ta bu shi da yu is an example of the worst of administrators. He has arrogated power to himself that no one was ever supposed to have. He deliberately and disingenuously ignores written policies that are intended to limit administrator power to specific tasks at community instruction. Ta bu shi da yu writes his own instructions, using editorial discretion that should be used only for editorial work. He will get the power again, of course; but he will not deserve it, and he will abuse it. — Ford 10:31, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    • Note that this RFARFC may be relevant to the above vote. Radiant_>|< 10:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah yes. The RFC because I locked the 2004 article. I stand by my decision on that one. A select few editors were holding it hostage with an NPOV tag, and were not attempting to resolve the issue - which was basically what to add and what to remove from the date page. The whole dispute was intractible and, to be honest, totally ridiculous. I removed the NPOV tag, when they kept putting it back I locked the page (I gave them plenty of warning). Then I had an RFC filed against me: fair enough I suppose. I ran with it and informed all on the RFC page that if the community found my admin action irresponsible and out of line I would reverse it. As it turns out, not many people agreed with the disputants. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That is the relevant RfC. I was in the minority then, and will be now. But by all means, read it. — Ford 11:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
      • Administrators are supposed to use their own judgement. If we had a fixed set of rules on how and when administrators could act and when they could not we'd just give everybody the powers and write software to make sure it couldn't be abused. If we didn't have people like Ta bu jumping in and stopping editors from acting like idiots, we'd end up with a ghost site. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I hadn't seen the RfC before, so I went and had a look. And... well... is that it? It sounds like the page in question had got to the stage where an admin had to use some initiative to unlock a few antlers. And the methods used, though a little heavy, were certainly not over the top. I can't think of anything I'd have done different in the same circumstances. It certainly got the two sides talking again. Grutness...wha? 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm still concerned about his behavior during our past dispute; I wouldn't worry about it ordinarily, except that recently he explicitly stated that he still believed himself to be in the right about it. Since the matter specifically pertained to an important admin power (blocking), I think that leans me toward oppose. Everyking 14:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    #I'm still opposing. If he was so utterly repentant about his Dalek vandalism (which he stated, for the record, over and over and OVER again), he wouldn't be in a rush to be renominated. It makes it sound as if his repentance isn't sincere, and believe me, that qualm is only the tip of the iceberg. Mike H 14:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, that is true, though I think at the time I sort of meant self-nomination, not the nomination of others. I am, however, still very sorry about the whole Dalek business, and can only state that I won't ever pull a stunt like that again. One stupid move can have bad consequences... trust me, it won't happen again (though you can only accept my word on that). - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I just want to state for clarification that TBSDY didn't really rush to get renominated. In fact, he never brought it up—it's more of a couple editors and me hassling TBSDY to see who could be the first to renominate him. I took full initiative in this nomination (with TBSDY's permission, of course). [I understand you have other objections and am not challenging your vote.] — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying for me. I still feel he could have declined, but that is my judgment call and not his. Mike H 17:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    I think that's fair enough. I can understand the reasoning and don't object to your object! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    He hasn't actually accepted yet... smoddy 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Did you not read his talk page? Knowledge Seeker asked if he could and he said yes. That's good enough for me. Mike H 21:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Ya. I did. :-) have accepted formally now. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. A.D.H. (t&m) 15:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I changed my vote last time, believing I had been wrong about him. Apparently I wasn't. – ugen64 22:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Not sure what I can do. I can understand Ugen64's oppose. Pity I stuffed up, but what's done is done - all I'm going to be able to do is work on being a good admin (if I get it) and even better contributor. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not asking to annoy here, but can I ask why? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    As I understand it, he's protesting the fact that unexplained "oppose" votes tend to be questioned, while "support" votes aren't. --Carnildo 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Who protests a support vote? I won't! But if I've done something to offend that person, I would very much like to know what it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What I believe Carnildo means is that Boothy objects that people are usually asked why they oppose an RFA, but are rarely asked why they support. As a reaction to that, he has opposed every single adminship nomination for the past week or so, and does not wish to discuss the matter. I seriously doubt it's personal. Radiant_>|< 08:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, scratch that. I just noticed that Boothy also supported a couple of nominations lately. That supposedly means that he has its reasons, but I wish you best of luck in finding out what they are. Radiant_>|< 09:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. moderately--Silverback 09:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) I found Ta bu a bit anal. Too into form rather than substance, e.g., he is a big critic of bullets, and makes snap criticisms the clumsy language in articles, ignoring the history that shows the language to be delicate compromises agreed to by the community. He thus, unwittingly it seems, is like a bull in a china shop. Here is a link to some of that past experience.[3]--Silverback 09:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Guilty as charged. About "anal"ness. As for "delicate compromises" - this is an encyclopedia, no? While I certainy don't go into articles looking to make trouble, I will make comments on what I feel to improvements to the article. Note that I do this on the talk page and wait for some sort of consensus - the purpose of talk pages, as a general rule. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I find the behaviour outlined in the RFC mentioned above too disturbing to be able to trust Ta bu bi shi yu with restored adminship. I have also found this edit [4], which indicates he/she is too quick to judge, especially considering the response to his actions here [5] and here [6]. I am also quite disturbed by the manner in which a sudden influx of editors supporting his/her point of view appeared - see the history here [7], as if a bullying tactic was being attempted. I feel that admin powers would make this attitude worse, and more menacing. ~~~~ 17:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    In response to this edit, I hold that the paragraph is POV:
    "The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."
    I in fact removed it some time after I noted it on the talk page. I also oppose the many weasel words I found in the article: I notice that no sources were given.
    I'm also not sure exactly why you are showing my Paul B's edits... both [8] and [9] are diffs of what Paul B wrote... could I have clarification on this?
    As for the sudden influx of editors: yep. I asked a few people like Jayjg and Slrubenstein to comment. Slrubenstein, in fact, very much knows his stuff. Jayjg has often commented on articles relating to Judaism, I felt his input would be valuable. Last time I looked, there was no policy against this. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I am not sure why someone providing a huge list of references (the edit you mark above as this edit) should count against the validity of the paragraph supported by the references.
    I list your edits rather than Paul's, since this is not a request for adminship for Paul, but for yourself, and it is not Paul's suitability to be an admin that is under scruitiny. Paul's part in this is thus nowhere near as important to consider in this (i.e. the RFA) matter, as is yours.
    I am not sure what you mean by weasel words, the article appears no different to molecule, mildew, puma, or teapot, in its sense of using words without explicitely identifying every single source immediately next to the items in question, rather than providing a reference list at the end.
    The editors you asked all appear to have edit histories which suggest they would have supported your point of view as a matter of faith, rather than neutrally approaching the evidence, before they even came to the article. I.e. it is too easy to predict their opinion on it before any of the facts concerning the article are even taken into consideration, thus your selection of them seems quite biased to me, and appears to be an attempt at bullying.
    The unbiased approach would have been to ask people who have contributed to articles concerning zoroastrianism, vedic mythology, and ancient (i.e. pre-500BC) greece, and asia-minor (rather than ancient Israel in particular), rather than a bunch of noticably Jewish and Christian editors, whose religions have a vested interest in removing the passage in question.
    If you do not feel you are acting in a highly biased way, then I feel that you should also be deleting sections of the molecule, mildew, puma, and teapot articles which are apparantly unsourced, and seem biased towards one particular point of view (i.e. the standard one in the field. If you fail to do this, I must question why, since if you are not carrying on a campaign of making articles agree with fundamentalist Christianity/Judaism, and only interested in NPOV, then why don't the same aspects on these four articles matter to you? ~~~~ 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I asked editors I know and respect. Note I also asked User:Raul654 for comment: don't try telling me he has a religious axe to grind.
    As for mentioning molecule, mildew, puma, and teapot: er, if they have weasel words, then they should be fixed. Two things to note here: you keep implying I removed great slabs of text, or at least wanted them to be removed: this is incorrect. I wanted them sourced. Secondly, I've never had the pleasure of reviewing those articles, therefore I find it disingenuous you mention them. My position on Wikipedia:No original research stands: this is a well established policy on our site. Not to mention the weasel words guideline, which goes hand in hand with that policy.
    I might note that I do understand if you disagree with my editing style and if you think I'm biased. If you are, in good conscience, voting against me because of these percieved issues then do not let me stand in your way. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Have reviewed Mildew, Molecule, panther and teapot. None of them are articles that would even be considered on WP:FAC. None of them have references! I fail to see where the weasel words in any of those articles are, however. Every one of those articles needs improvement and I would not have the slightest hesitation in asking for sources. I haven't done so because I haven't ever felt the urge to read about these articles, instead I've focused on articles like Windows 2000 and Municipality of Strathfield. Also, I note that none of these have anything to do with my percieved religious bias — if there is an implication I would ask for a Biblically based viewpoint added to this article, then I find this absurd. Zoroastrianism made some pretty bold claims: that it was a formative influence on Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, I wanted that opinion sourced. How, pray tell, was I meant to have double checked the "general scholarly opinion" of the article if I don't have sources? I should also note that the sources were added by Paul B to the talk page after I made my comments. This is a good thing, and though I haven't said it, I very much appreciate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Why is it that there is no-editor you "respect" that holds the opposing religious viewpoint to yours?
    If you focus on Municipal Windows of Strathfield, I fail to see why you arrived at Zoroastrianism, or how you seem to have a connection to editors who noticably edit Christianity/Judaism articles. My mention of Mildew, Molecule, panther, and teapot, is because there is no way these are likely to be connected to a religious bias. My question is, if this is the case, and it is not a religious axe that you grind, but merely one of NPOV, why do you not go ahead and remove the "unsourced" sections in them?
    Note that the phrase If you are confronted by a mountain lion, do not run; that might stimulate a lion's is apparantly an opinion, and might is a weasel word - where is the evidence, what would cause it, who suggests such a thing? It appears to me that this sort of thing only concerns you in a religious context, i.e. it is a religious rather than NPOV axe you grind.
    ~~~~ 13:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't only work on my focus articles, and I respect many editors. Like I stated, Raul654 has a different opinion than myself when it comes to religious topics and I asked him to comment on the article. Did you not read that in my previous comment? At the risk of going ad hominem on you, if it helps make you sleep at night to think that I have a religious axe to grind, by all means keep feeling that way. All I can say is that I didn't comment on that article because of it: I have issues with the sourcing of the article and the weasel words — this is all I really have to say on the matter. You can believe what you wish about me, there is not much I can do to alter it.
    As for asking why I didn't remove material: you just can't win sometimes! If I had removed the material without going to the talk page, then I would have been accused of POV pushing. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to ask for sources and to raise issues on the talk page first to a) stimulate debate, and b) give the original authors a chance to cite their sources! I find the question, to be honest, disingenuous.
    As for you failing to see my connection with other users: sorry if this sounds blunt, but... so what? I've racked up over 17000 edits on this site and have edited literally HUNDREDS of pages on different topics. Of course I've come to know quite a few users! Are you implying I was trying to stack the page to push one POV? And how is presenting my concerns on a talk page a big problem? Are you saying I shouldn't comment on the page at all?!? I hope not!
    To address your concern about Puma, please read the article again. The article says:
    These safety tips were provided by the California Department of Fish and Game and compiled for the Orange County Register by news researcher M. Doss:
    etc
    * If you are confronted by a mountain lion, do not run; that might stimulate a lion's instinct to chase. Instead, stand and face the animal, make eye contact.
    This has a source: the Californian Department of Fish and Game and was compiled by Orange County Register by news researcher M. Doss. Unsure why you think this is an unsourced opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose with a somewhat heavy heart. Not convinced his recent contributions match his previous good record. It's unlikely this nomination will fail, but if it does, I'm willing to reconsider in a month or so, because I like Ta bu, but my respect for him has diminished a little bit. Grace Note 02:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I always appreciate honesty :-) No hard feelings on my end. Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I thought ta bu shi da yu was already an admin, and when I thought this, I didn't like that notion. So, no, oppose adminship. --WikiFan04ß 3:33, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)
  10. Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose, but it was only very recently that the last RfA was withdrawn and I'm still worried about the whole vandalism thing. It seems to me it was a major error of judgement, very harmful to the project, and while you can assure us you won't vandalise an article on the main page again, you can't really assure us that your judgment won't lapse again. Worldtraveller 10:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It's OK. I can only give you my word that I won't do anything like this again, but understand your reluctance to support my RFA. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - After reading the comments both support and opposition as well as neutral, I feel I have to weigh in on the opposition. I'm certain that Ta bu shi da yu is a nice person, but nice is not, in my opinion, reason enough to be an admin. I apologize for my opposition, but I believe an adminship requires more calmness and even-handedness than the candidate has demonstrated in recent months. The candidate seems to also take any opposition far too personal, seeming overwhelmingly too eager to become an admin. It's just not that important! That being said, on Ta's behalf, let me qualify that by saying I would oppose any nominations for adminship for myself, given my current inability to think out my responses on heated debates, until I could manage a level head over an extended period of time. ℬastique▼talk 17:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm... I don't feel I am. I am responding to those who are opposing my adminship, not because of the adminship issue — to be honest, if I get it I'll have more work to do (I'm fine with this, but admining does take time if you wish to do it well), whereas if I don't get it then I'll be able to contribute more to the content of the site — what I am taking issue with is that I push a POV. I am merely trying to set the record straight on several issues, and also find out if there is anything that I need to modify in my edit behaviour. I can't see why this is a problem: I'm certainly not taking it too personally (at least, I don't feel I am). Be aware though: if people find specific issues about me, I will address them to the best of my ability! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I believe in forgiveness, but the transgression is a little to recent for my taste. Trust, once lost, is difficult and takes time to regain. --Xcali 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. 他不是大鱼 seems like a great guy and everything, but one of the main reasons for not giving admin powers to everyone is the risk of childish vandalism. And guess what he did at his last RFA. There are plenty of people who on principle would never do that and who are denied adminship. I'm undecided. — Chameleon 16:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I abstain presently, but may vote support or oppose depending on how this nomination is conducted. Cyberjunkie TALK 04:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Would have prefered a longer break between RfA nominations. Dmn / Դմն 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I agree with Dave's point and one I gave a lot of thought to myself. But I decided to vote support based on overall contribution and history. And, yeah, the fact that he seems like a nice guy probably weighed in there too. Guettarda 16:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading the replies, I would like to talk to ta bu shi da yu in IRC chat...apparently the preconceived notions I have about him may very well be wrong, and if I can talk to him soon, I may very well change my vote to support...I'm thinking very hard about it. Mike H 03:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I note in the RFC cited as evidence against him, 26 users supported either TBSDY's summary or Raul654's summary, which was very supportive of TBSDY. In contrast, only four supported the summary against him. Ingoolemo talk 20:14, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Reversion of vandalism. Blocking vandals for 24 hours. Locking pages to deal with vandalism and at reasonable requests from editors. I won't be blocking editors I disagree with: that is clearly an abuse of power. I won't be locking pages I contribute to significantly or where I have a strong POV. I will only use the rollback tool to combat vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Btrieve, Exploding whale, Windows 2000, Architecture of Windows 2000, Common Unix Printing System, Cyclone Tracy, Windows XP. Hmmm. Didn't realise I'd got so many computer related articles to FA status... must try harder. Note: recently added another article to my list of FA articles: Architecture of Btrieve.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yeah. See Talk:Zoroastrianism, I asked for sources and pointed out that the article was POV (the paragraph has since been removed, an anon removed the NPOV tag so I never got a chance to remove it) and then proceded to get into a dispute with Paul B. Don't think it went so well... still working out how to sort this out. It might take further research of the topic to tighten it up (several people would disagree, but I feel it could be better). User:Pcb21 recently called me a liar, saying that I split off exploding whale from Sperm Whale and Gray Whale, and also that this article (which was featured on the main page a while ago) "has become a standing joke in Wikipedia, thanks in no small part to your posturing" (unsure what he means by "posturing"). The fact is, I didn't split off that article from those pages. I wrote the following on my talk page:
Having just moved from Kuro5hin to Wikipedia, I was interested in seeing what this website was capable of doing. I had known about the exploding whale article from years ago, when I downloaded the movie via my 56K modem and showed it to my brother. After we finished rolling around the floor laughing, we didn't think much of it. As I found the topic to be interesting, but somewhat obscure, I wrote the article as my first fully fledged "featured article". Initially I didn't think much of it, but then I discovered WP:FAC. For a while I didn't think that it would be good enough to put it there, but then one day curiousity got the better of me and I submitted it to the queue. I addressed all the concerns (and nearly bit poor Deni's head off - my first bit of wikistress, and quite unfair to Deni, might I say) and properly referenced the article. Then it got to FA status. Then, to my suprise, it got to the main page... the rest is history. For the record, I never used any of the material from sperm whale or gray whale, though I think I added a wikilink to one of the articles. I suppose I might have noted that it was a gray whale from that article - I can't remember. Anyway, suffice to say that, though both the articles referred to by Pcb21 are very good (though I haven't done more than skim read them), I definitely didn't use them. I already knew about the exploding whale through other means. It is, after all, a fairly well known Internet meme.
I have replied to him, strenously objecting to being called a liar. What else can I do? So, uh, it appears that this is a difficult month. They aren't usually like this. I don't think I normally attract controversy. I certainly don't seek it out.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_3_dbff.html"