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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Where's the evidence?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Where're the violations?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dispute <big> Resolution </big>

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[2004]] is unlocked.