Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu

Where's the evidence?

Out of interest, where is the evidence that this "dispute" was attempted to be resolved amicably? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear. I wrote that "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." There we have Ford protesting, and you refusing to budge; then me protesting, and you refusing to budge. We're supposed to try resolving disputes with the other user first, and we did try. Since no one on either side changed their minds, I brought it to an RFC.

But I admit that maybe I really should have tried a bit harder before bringing it here. I'm now a bit sorry for that, but I can't rewrite history. Nevertheless, there's no reason that I see we can't still resolve this by discussion. So let's try. According to Wikipedia:Protection policy, admins should not protect pages they are "involved in an edit dispute over", correct? And aren't you presently involved in an edit dispute over at 2004, as to whether the NPOV tag should be kept? How would protecting the page not violate the rule? —Simetrical (talk) 01:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not involved in the dispute. I have carefully read the talk page, and used my discretion as an administrator to remove the NPOV tag and force some compromise here. As you have just placed the NPOV tag back I've removed it and protected the page, as I said I would. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ford and I consider that the NPOV tag belongs there, and you disagree. Why isn't that a dispute? —Simetrical (talk) 01:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And even if you're not involved, you've shown favoritism as to which version you chose to protect. This is against the protection policy as well. —Simetrical (talk) 01:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. I just removed the NPOV tag of the last edit. I have not made any edits to existing content. If you don't like the content, there are ways of compromising. I haven't seen you do any of these things yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've come back to whether there's an edit dispute. Ford and I believe the NPOV tag belongs on the page; you disagree. You have not yet explained how this is not a dispute. —Simetrical (talk) 01:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you have not attempted to compromise. There is a viable option: split the page into multiple subarticles. Do this and the NPOV dispute is resolved. It's not hard. As it is, there is a standoff at the moment. Fix the problem. Don't just slap an NPOV tag back on the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For a year page? That would be annoying. And the goal is for people to read it. --YixilTesiphon 02:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior is what's in question here, not ours. If you think there's an applicable policy that we've violated, start up another RFC. Here is where we discuss your behavior and this RFC.

You still haven't said how the NPOV tag question doesn't qualify as an edit dispute. —Simetrical (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where're the violations?

What actions did Ta bu actually perform that were outside of his authority? silsor 22:32, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

He didn't, strictly speaking, do anything outside his authority until just now—he merely threatened to. Now he has protected a page to resolve an edit dispute that he was involved in, in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's protection policy. He also showed favoritism as to which version he protected, which is against the policy as well. —Simetrical (talk) 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know what edit dispute I'm involved in. I have nothing to do with any content dispute, I am merely trying to get that NPOV tag out of the article and force a compromise from battling editors. That is not a content dispute. If you could tell me which text in the article (apart from the NPOV tag, which is really not content) I would appreciate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we may as well keep our discussion to one part of the page, rather than saying the same things in two different parts. I'll continue this above. —Simetrical (talk) 01:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read carefully

There is an obvious tendency in the comments regarding this dispute to let the issue be obscured. The issue is not Ta bu shi da yu’s editorial judgement, which so many seem to agree with. The issue is Ta bu shi da yu’s abuse of administrator power to enforce editorial judgement.

Wikipedia:Protection policy provides for only three cases where an administrator may temporarily protect a page. None of those cases obtains here. When faced with the policy, Ta bu shi da yu chose, despite having previously offered unrelated reasons, to justify the protection of the page with this policy: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request. Ta bu shi da yu has provided no evidence of any edit war, or of any request for protection. The last edit on the issue of the NPOV tag was, in fact, a compromise: Astrotrain exchanged the NPOV tag, which Astrotrain had been trying to remove altogether, for the long NPOV tag. That edit [1] took place on January 29. To claim, two full weeks later, that there was an edit war in need of a cool-down period is simply false.

As the evidence from Talk:2004#NPOV tag (again) shows, Ta bu shi da yu was proposing an editorial solution to what Ta bu shi da yu saw as an editorial problem. Ta bu shi da yu then threatened to enforce that solution, and, should anyone edit in contradiction to this solution, to protect the page in the form that Ta bu shi da yu preferred. This is a clear violation of instructions to administrators regarding page protection: 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).

Let us focus on what actually happened. Ta bu shi da yu made an editorial change[2], accompanied by a threat to enforce this using adminstrator power. In a talk-page edit summary, Ta bu shi da yu offered an editorial opinion to back up the change[3]. After arguing against this change and especially against this potential use of administrator power, Simetrical undid the change — a day and a half later[4]. Within six minutes, Ta bu shi da yu had reverted to Ta bu shi da yu’s own preferred version of the page, and protected it.[5]

If the presence or absence of the NPOV tag is not substantive, then no one should be in a hurry to change it. The tag is a statement to our readers that something in the page is under dispute, and a warning to read the page with caution. To remove the tag, as Ta bu shi da yu did, is indeed a substantive edit to the article. Ta bu shi da yu has an opinion on how the article should look, has edited the article in support of that opinion, and used administrator power to stop anyone from revising that edit.

Talk:2004 clearly shows a great deal of discussion about the content of the article, and the neutrality of that content. From one issue to the next, there have been ad-hoc coalitions in support and opposed. This request for comment is not about the content of the article; it is not the dispute between me (and others) and Astrotrain (and others) about the content of the article, or its neutrality. This request for comment is about the extent of administrator power. There is a policy on page protection. Ta bu shi da yu has violated that policy. Those who are using this request for comment as an opportunity to dismiss me and my kind for our silliness are being shortsighted. They are allowing an administrator to abuse what is supposed to be a limited power in order to score points off of someone with whom they disagree. As I said on Talk:2004, if others encourage this abuse of power on the shortsighted grounds that they agree with Ta bu shi da yu’s editorial judgement and disagree with mine, we may as well abandon all notion of policy, or of administrators as servants of the community, not masters.

Out of respect, please respond to these points below, not within the text above. To preserve the flow of my own argument, I will move any comments which are inserted.
— Ford 12:34, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Policy is sometimes made by editors and by administrators. To me it looks as if this administrator acted appropriately to break up a ridiculously trivial squabble that was damaging an important page. It could well be that in future other administrators will feel empowered to act in this way, and their actions will then be judged on a case-by-case basis, as will this one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Policy is made by Wikipedians as a whole. Administrators are Wikipedians, and therefore they have just as much right as anyone to vote on policy. They do not have any more right than anyone. As the Wikipedia:Administrators page says, "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." Is the Wikipedia:Administrators page policy or not? —Simetrical (talk) 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably (hopefully) a large part of the reason that we were unanimously outnumbered until just now is that, idiot that I am, I originally wrote the page without specifying what, exactly, Ta bu shi da yu did that was wrong. I linked to two whole pages, without mentioning what part of them Ta bu shi da yu violated. By the time I realized this and updated the Applicable policies section, we were outnumbered ten to two. We'll see what happens now—we've just gotten our first supporter. Now it's just thirteen to three. —Simetrical (talk) 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Numbers are irrelevant, since what matters is being correct or not, but count me in as a supporter, if only because her tone really pissed me off.--YixilTesiphon 02:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong sex mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but your name makes me think female. I'd probably call guys named Ashley "she" too. --YixilTesiphon 02:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Er? Sorry? Ashlee? what are you talking about? Where did you get the impression that my name is "Ashlee" out of interest? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't. But you're just asking for it having the syllable "shi" in your name. --YixilTesiphon 04:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Still don't understand it. My username is nonsense Mandarin (without tones). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has to do with the way I read. When I read, I hear the sound in my head. Thus reading your name leaves me with "she" (shi), the only sound I recognize when I read your name. --YixilTesiphon 05:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

S'ok, my username confuses most people :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

The purpose of the RfC pages are to aid dispute resolution, with the emphasis firmly on the resolution. This page gives the various disputants the opportunity to see how others in the Wikipedia community see their dispute.

The message given by the community is relevant to all parties in a dispute - it indicates what is seen as reasonable or unreasonable behaviour - and it gives a chance for all parties to reflect.

Hopefully, this will be a positive experience, and lead to the underlying issue on how the 2004 page is presented being resolved in a spirit of positive co-operation.

The message on this page seems to be that many Wikipedians would welcome a negotiated end to this dispute - I hope all the disputants step back, and assess for themselves how to take the matter forward, jguk 20:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope this will be a positive experience and establish social norms that are acceptable to the Wikipedia community. I was quite happy to have this RFC made and if a majority of people felt that I was being unfair I would have bowed to consensus. So, admin activity is also under the microsope also, and I think that is a good thing as well. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A temporary protection is used for:

The voters don't seem to be being objective and instead are taking sides in a dispute. Perhaps there should be separate votes on each of the three criteria for protecting a page.--Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question For each of the criteria below, does the protection as implemented by the accused meet this criterion?

1) Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.

• No, a compromise had been reached and the editing of the article was over on this issue. No protection request had been made. --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If a compromise had been reached, why was there still an NPOV tag on the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 20:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because the compromise was that Astrotrain would have free rein in the article, but Ford would get to keep an NPOV tag there. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• No. Two full weeks had passed since the last related edit to the article, parties had reached stasis. Not an edit war by the loosest definition. No request. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • By that logic, Germany and Britain were not at war between Sept 1939 and May 1940; that is, during the Phony War, they weren't really combatants. --Calton 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism or persistent edits by a banned user.

• NO, there is no banned user involved, nothing had happened recently. --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No. No vandalism, no banned user. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

3) Preventing changes to a page while investigating a possible bug in the MediaWiki software.

• NO --Silverback 13:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No. — Ford 14:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• This one doesn't even require discussion. --YixilTesiphon 00:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Guys: Nobody cares. Everyone else thinks TBSDY did the right thing. Every post you make to this RFC and its talk page, every minute you spend acting the self-righteous wikilawyer rather than fixing the 2004 article, just makes you look pettier and pettier. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rather than participate in a jury nullification of the rules, why don't you change the rules? --Silverback 15:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a court of law and we are not a jury; we are just users who are interested in the conflict and have offered their opinions. The rule TBSDY is accused of breaking is generally a good one, so I don't think anyone wants to see it done away with. I would wager that most of those who voiced support for his actions were willing to overlook a minor trangression by someone previously uninvolved in the argument, if that meant breaking a long-running NPOV dispute—a dispute which certain parties seemed, and still seem, quite happy to leave unresolved. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He could have forced a resolution without abuse of his administrative privileges. Specifically, he could have started a fair vote on how to resolve the dispute, and I'm sure that both Ford and Astrotrain would abide by the decision. Wikipedia is a democracy, more or less, and policy is mostly decided through votes of various sorts. The end may or may not justify the means in general, but surely it doesn't when the actor has other, preferable means at his disposal.

And by the way, you are our peers, come here to decide whether a specific rule applies to a specific case. That seems to me very much like a jury. The only difference is that your decisions aren't binding. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rules are ways to regulate use of the environment, not a sacred text to be worshipped. As someone once said, you're mistaking the map for the territory. --Calton 01:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rules are ways to regulate use of the environment. They can't do so effectively if they're broken. —Simetrical (talk) 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...and, as I said and you completely ignored, not sacred texts to be worshipped. Rules are always interpreted, which is why courtrooms have judges and not computers. And it's also true that rules can be a weapon in the hands of obstructionists like you and your fellow ninnyhammer who, instead of trying to settle the dispute that led to this sorry state, are trying to interpret the letter of the rules to avoid complying with the spirit. Look about you: you've gotten precisely TWO people to agree with and 15 who told you to, in effect, grow up and stop throwing your temper tantrums.

So I ask you: what IS your major malfunction? What peculiar psychological problem do you two have that render you two unable to work amicably and compromise on some simple articles? What is so difficult that about compromise that makes you two go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid it? --Calton 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004 is unlocked.

Hopefully the editors involved in that page will now resolve their issues and work towards compromises on this article. I have noted on the talk page that the article editors shouldn't just slap on the NPOV tag and not actively work towards a solution to getting rid of that tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If they slap on the NPOV tag again, you have my unqualified support in whatever action you feel necessary to deal with it. That doesn't mean anything officially, I know, but I thought I'd speak up here. --Calton 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)