Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 21 June 2005

Ta bu shi da yu

Vote here (50/6/2) ending 08:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has been with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ( and ). 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. Bratsche 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 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)
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 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)

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)
3. 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). — 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)

4. A.D.H. (t&m) 15:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
5. 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)

6. --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)

7. 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.--Silverback 09:04, Jun 21, 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. File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 04:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)