Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute
Ta bu shi da yu entered 2004 page, decided that the tag was inappropriate, removed it, proposed a solution to the NPOV dispute, and threatened to protect the page if NPOV was readded or users didn't obey his solution.

Description
There was a long-standing dispute on the 2004 page, principally between users Ford and Astrotrain, but others were involved as well. Eventually, edit wars ended, and the page remained in dispute with the tag. At 13:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC), Ta bu shi da yu removed the tag from the page, and threatened to protect the page if it was readded. Furthermore, Ta bu shi da yu posted on Talk:2004 proposing that the page be split up, and threatening to protect the page if anyone attempted to edit the split pages back into the main page.

Update, 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC): Simetrical reverted Ta bu shi da yu's edit, arguing that Ford's objections had not been addressed and therefore the neutrality of the page was still disputed. Ta bu shi da yu removed the tag again and protected the page, as he had stated.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * First relevant edit to 2004
 * Second relevant edit to 2004
 * Relevant section of Talk:2004

Applicable policies
From Administrators:
 * Administrators are not imbued with any special authority . . . it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users.

It is argued that Ta bu shi da yu overstepped his authority by using admin powers to enforce a solution that had not been approved by either the Wiki community or an Arbitration Committee. As this quote makes clear, admins may only apply "decisions made by all users."

From Protection policy:
 * 2. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over. . ..

It is argued that Ta bu shi da yu was involved in an edit dispute with Ford, Simetrical, and others over the propriety of the NPOV tag, and therefore was barred from protecting the page in question by this part of the protection policy.
 * Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page).

It is argued that Ta bu shi da yu's removal of the NPOV tag constituted a "substantive edit" to the page, and therefore that he was barred from protecting the page by this part of the protection policy. It is further argued that Ta bu shi da yu's opinion that the page in question should be split up was expressed on the article's talk page, and therefore that he was barred from protecting the page by this part of the protection policy.
 * In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version.

It is argued that the dispute in question did not involve vandalism, and that therefore Ta bu shi da yu violated this portion of the protection policy by openly favoring the version of the article without the NPOV tag over the version with it.

Finally, it is to be noted that the validity of none of the allegations is affected by the merit of the NPOV tag, and that even if the NPOV tag was unjustified, this does not mitigate any violation of above policies. If the merit of the NPOV tag is to be discussed, it should be on a separate RFC page, since it has no bearing on this one.

Response from Ta bu shi da yu
I wish to state for the record that I am not involved in the dispute on 2004, therefore "2. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." does not apply.

Secondly, I wish to dispute the whole bit about "admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." In the case of this article, I did not touch any of the actual content. I merely removed the NPOV tag as I had already stated on the talk page and added a protection notice, then locked the page. This has been done to stop the protracted deadlock over the neutrality of the article. Clearly nothing was being explored to resolve the NPOV dispute, therefore this should force the parties to the table on a resolution. Try to understand that at least one party has already stated that "everyone had tacitly agreed to disagree on a version" ), which I'm rather afraid is not acceptable as NPOV disputes must have an attempt to resolve them. I have already stated this on the talk page - see . Now, if someone has a better idea for resolving this issue that would be satisfactory to the majority of disputing parties, then I would not have an issue with the NPOV tag remaining on the page until the matter was sorted out. However, there has been no compromise and proposed resolution to this issue. My intervention has forced this. People may not like the seemingly heavy-handed way I've gone about it, and it may have annoyed some people, but at the end of the day this is really the only way of resolving this particular problem. Besides which, I haven't been unfair and imposed punitive damages against any of the editors. All I've done is locked the page until those editors work something out. I note here that I left the disputing editors a message on their talk page asking how they intend to resolve the dispute, and also left a note on the article's talk page asking the same thing. So far I haven't seen any attempt at resolving the dispute, which I feel shows more problems than my locking of the page. If the parties were serious about the neutrality of the article then they would try to work something out. They haven't, and so the page has been locked. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu has indeed made a substantive edit — removing the tag. And he has expressed an opinion for the edit — “The fact that there is an NPOV tag on a date page is ridiculous.”  If removing the tag is not substantive, he would have no objections to this edit being reversed; he would have shown no preference for which version of the article was protected.  The tag is part of the “actual content”; it is a communication to readers as much as any fact in the article, and more important than any single fact, because it summarizes a potential problem with the content.  And Ta bu shi da yu has still not offered evidence of an ongoing edit war in need of a cool-down period, as he has alleged.  He has made clear again and again, including above, that he protected the page to force a compromise, and moreover, to force his own proposed compromise (which would also be substantive, and for which he has expressed support on the talk page).  This is not one of the limited criteria for temporary page protection, according to the protection policy.  Ta bu shi da yu has subsequently left messages on the users’ talk pages, but this cannot be treated as a good-faith effort to mediate by a peer, since he had already used administrative power to force a compromise.  Ta bu shi da yu has clearly lost sight of the distinction between his own editorial judgement, and what constitutes grounds for administrator intervention.  Judging from the comments below, so have a lot of other editors.  Administrators handle only specific tasks that the community assigns them; they do not have an unlimited mandate to alter editorial content from a particular point of view.  Those editors who do not object now will have no recourse if this ad hoc policy of Ta bu shi da yu’s is allowed to stand.— Ford 12:37, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You know what to do to get that page unlocked. If you're serious about wanting it unlocked, and you're serious about getting an NPOV page, you will make an attempt to compromise. Until I see some acknowledgement, I can only assume that you do not want that page to be written from a neutral point of view. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You can assume whatever you like, but the only thing you have reason to assume is that I will not agree to do things your way while you are trying to force me to do things your way. Any other assumption is unwarranted.— Ford 12:51, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to force you to try to compromise. Perhaps you should read the NPOV policy? If you don't like it, you don't have to contribute here you know. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to. In fact, you are not authorized to.  Perhaps you should read the administrators policy.  If you don’t like it, you do not have to serve as an administrator.— Ford 13:11, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * An attempt to resolve dispute in 2004

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Talk:2004—Ford stated that Ta bu shi da yu was exceeding his authority as an administrator, and Ta bu shi da yu refused to relent. Then Simetrical posted evidence from Wikipedia policy (see Applicable policies above) that he said Ta bu shi da yu was violating; Ta bu shi da yu stated that he wasn't violating policy.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * 1) —Simetrical (talk) 19:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) —Ford 00:09, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

--Silverback 13:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) The page is now protected and that was inappropriate. If the protection was an abuse of administrator powers, then so was the threat of it. It was OK for Tabu to remove the ridiculous NPOV tag, just as it was OK for those who wanted to put it on, as long as they were working to achieve NPOV. If they were not working to achive NPOV, they shouldn't be using the tag, but as along as an edit war wasn't resulting, protection was inappropriate and an abuse. Perhaps the correct wiki solution for this page is a dynamic switching between NPOV and not NPOV, hopefully slowly, perhaps once a day until one side or the other tuckers out. All "solutions" don't have to be static.--Silverback 13:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding! Adding the NPOV tag/not adding the NPOV tag shouldn't be a war of attrition! That is not a solution. If they weren't working towards a solution (which they clearly weren't) then they should not have kept adding the NPOV tag, especially on something like a date page. My "threat" wasn't in any way saying that I would impose sanctions on any editor, therefore I don't believe it can be called a threat. It was a method of breaking a deadlock on a page. Continuously adding the NPOV tag when no compromise was attempted could be called an edit war in some ways. It's basically trying to impose their own view of the article with disregard to others, which ironically they have accused myself of doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, it shouldn't be a war of attrition, but it also should not be the big deal, heavy handed deal you made of it. Frankly, the NPOV tag is good advice for the reader to keep in mind on every page, and even in print encyclopedias.  At least here we can add it without killing trees.--Silverback 08:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--I violently disagree with the notion that "NPOV tags on date pages are ridiculous". Clearly the neutrality of the page was disputed. I also feel that TBSDY came across as overbearing. Apparently she wanted to use her power on something. --YixilTesiphon 02:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's clear at all. Also, I'm a he, not a she. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone disagrees with another's viewpoint and feels that that person's viewpoint is monopolizing the page (which both Astrotrain and Ford did, along with others), that is a neutrality dispute. Any more questions for Captain Obvious, kids? --YixilTesiphon 02:45, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a neutrality dispute is fine. Tagging an article with an NPOV tag and just agreeing to leave it on there is not. This problem has been going on for months. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this: but the editors are not coming to a compromise on this issue, and they don't own the article. Others edit it also and they edit it neutrally. Why should they have the article have an NPOV tag take it over when the disputing editors aren't trying to fix the mess? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The only person who is acting like he owns the article is you.— Ford 04:03, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

This is no longer relevant as the page is no longer protected. --YixilTesiphon 00:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, it is still relevant. If people want to comment about my actions as an admin, I feel that they should continue to contribute to this discussion on what is and is not acceptable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, I don't care anymore, as the problem which brought me here is over. Ta. --YixilTesiphon 04:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a clear case of "rules are rules". The rule was violated with good intent, but violated it was. This should not be acceptable conduct on the part of an administrator, IMO. 205.210.232.62 05:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The above was by me. I thought I was logged in. DES 05:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Not much to say here, except that a) I haven't locked the page yet (jumping the gun a little bit?) (I have now), and b) people should check the talk page of that article to look at how ridiculous the whole situation of having an NPOV tag on a year is. Nothing was being done about it, and this issue has been ongoing for about 4 months now. I would suggest that the parties resolve their issues and follow a proposed remedy (pretty much the only one that is possible: create new 2004 specialty pages) or they should not be suprised that the NPOV tag is removed from the page, and that enforced by an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Proteus (Talk) 20:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SimonP 20:27, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Astrotrain 21:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Ta bu shi da yu is a good user. 172 05:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Rama 13:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

A few days ago, Tabu explained the situation on this page, and asked me for advice - IE, was he going about it in the right way. I told him yes - breaking NPOV deadlocks is a good thing. If he had to threaten page protection to get the 2 disputing parties to start discussing a solution, that's absolutely fine both by me and by wikipedia guidelines. There's nothing to see here, move along. →Raul654 20:29, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) I agree with Raul's approach, jguk 20:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) As do I. If only the two parties raising this RfC had put as much energy into resolving the NPOV dispute in the first place. . . —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutralitytalk 01:26, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Frivolous RfC. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Carrp | Talk 04:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) a very lame dispute dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Frivolous RfC. Bishonen | Talk 21:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Ridiculous RfC, a temper tantrum over ending attempts to bring an end to a ridiculously protracted dispute. Calton 00:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Echo Mirv. The underlying dispute is an obvious candidate for Lamest edit wars ever. Anyone trying to end the resulting deadlock is to be commended. --Michael Snow 00:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Will the lame RfCs and RfArs ever end? As soon as the stupid Darwin/Lincoln RfAr closes, this pops up. TBSDY did the right thing, and he doesn't need this. Szyslak 10:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Seems to be a frivolous RfC. Additionally, there seems to be some sort of conflictual tendency (perpetuation of the NPOV tag, now this RfC) which does not need to be encouraged, in my opinion. Rama 13:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Anything that resolves a dispute, is by definition good. I wish I had seen that page first: I would have done the same thing! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) As above. --Carnildo 01:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree with others about the lameness of this dispute and there are no problems with TBSDY's actions to break the deadlock. older ≠ wiser 14:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Well said, Raul. Smoddy (t) (e) 23:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) What Mirv said. MarkSweep 07:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Ditto. In support. Mandel 19:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Frivolous RfC -- Chris 73 Talk 07:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Frivolous RfC Jordi·✆ 08:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I, and others had called for the tag to be removed before, and was met with hostility from Ford. I agree that NPOV tags are ridiculous on a date page, and that removal of the tag was the only reasonable action by yourself, given the apparent stalemate in the neutrality discussion. The original dispute relating to notability of events listed in the 2004 page was discussed fully, as can be seen in the talk page, and the current version seems to be satisfactory to the majority. Astrotrain 23:05, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

I think that the protection of the said page was appropriate. --Spinboy 01:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.