Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Vote here (83/9/7) ending 07:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC) (UTC)

I was once an admin, but left due to personal reasons (nothing to do with Wikipedia). I had an article in Wikipedia Signpost about my exit. Now that I've had a longish Wikibreak, I'd like to come back to Wikipedia again. Though I may not be quite as involved in admin tasks as before, I'd like to give it another shot. If people feel that I shouldn't be an admin because I left, I will honour the community's decision. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the Dalek edit, yeah, that was me. It was a joke and I didn't realise it would cause a lot of consternation! Yes, it's the real Ta bu shi da yu being a bit of an idiot. To all those I offended, sorry! If anyone wants to oppose on that edit, then I guess I can't really blame them. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request. Sorry to all I disappointed. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Speedy promote -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  2. I agree -- Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  3. This doesn't need a vote. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 08:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No issue here - put Ta bu shi da ya back on the list. Dbiv 08:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, obviously. Glad to have you back! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Radiant_* 09:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  7. 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)
    Heh! Good one! :D JRM is a funny guy, he should probably be hard banned for that. El_C 08:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course! Lupo 09:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unconditional support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to "oppose" yet, but I want to wait to see what the story is on Dalek. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "longish" break? don't fool us, you failed rehab, and are back to ride the dragon, eh, the sunflower. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely!!! Welcome back, Ta bu shi da yu -- Chris 73 Talk 09:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  12. One of the few, the fine. Phils 09:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Without a doubt. Welcome back! Proteus (Talk) 09:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, No need for this. Inter\Echo 10:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. (See my comment below) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. From what I gather, TBSDY was a good admin, and should get the admin privileges back. Sjakkalle 11:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support. Recreation of previously deleted adminship. --Deathphoenix 13:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Welcome back. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support--Cyberjunkie 14:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Welcome Back! --Canderson7 14:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC) Neutral. See Below. --Canderson7 20:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. A fine wikipedian, and an inspiration ever since I've joined. --InShaneee 14:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Indeed. john k 15:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Glad to see you back. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC) Moved to Neutral, see comment below requesting response from TBSDY. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, Welcome Back. Rje 15:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, of course. - Taxman 15:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Thar she blows! --Michael Snow 16:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolutely, TBSDY is a great editor and admin. A comment: I wasn't aware you had been de-adminned, and I oppose de-adminship for sysops taking Wikibreaks. —Lowellian (talk) 16:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  26. SupportGeni 17:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, obviously. jni 17:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support of course. Rhobite 19:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Duh. Andre (talk) 20:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Speedy Bratschetalk random 20:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Great contributor! --Neigel von Teighen 21:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Everything's been said already, but welcome back. Meelar (talk) 21:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Obradović Goran (talk 22:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. JYolkowski // talk 23:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong oppose. – ugen64 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Rationale: generally unfriendly, in my experience. It is also difficult to support someone for adminship when he has a previous history of admin abuse - and I would definitely consider spamming user talk pages, being blocked, then unblocking oneself a history of admin abuse. Finally, this user is about 30% of the reason why I asked for removal of adminship. – ugen64 23:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Support.[reply]
    I'm glad that I now know the reason for your strong oppose! however you should be aware that at the time I wasn't aware that the general admin question I was asking was going to cause offense. You should be aware that Silsor blocked me for about 5-10 minutes, after an hour I still found myself blocked so I unblocked myself. After this I created the Wikipedian Administrators' noticeboard, which has been a roaring success. So that spam incident and unblock thing happened one time, and I feel this was justified. Certainly this is the first I have heard that you were upset about me unblocking myself: I guess I'd like to know that if you were so upset, why didn't you leave me a message on my talk page? As for being unfriendly and for me being one of the reasons you wanted to be desysoped, again I was not aware of this and you certainly never brought your concerns to me so I could discuss them with you! Perhaps some specific concerns here might be helpful so others can see who they are voting for...
    Incidently, if I did offend you (as I can see that I have), I apologise and hope that you'll message me with your concerns so that I can redress any offenses I may have caused you. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm of the opinion that anything that you can do can be done by someone else (i.e. another admin) :). Nonetheless, all of this happened a long time ago, and I really cannot remember why you offended me. I'm sure it was grievously, undoubtedly, and inappropriately offensive. Nonetheless, vote changed to support. I seem to be undergoing strange changes in mood... :) – ugen64 00:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. And thar blows my vote record too, I bet. Oh, no! Does this mean I'm gonna have to pass on the honor of the Pufferfish of Most Conceited New Admin to Ta Bu Shi?? :-( --Bishonen | talk 00:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Pufferfish expand, but they don't explode. Also, you earned it fair and square. JRM · Talk 08:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  36. Support, naturally Fawcett5 01:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    support Kingturtle 01:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Who? Yeah, I guess. El_C 02:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. It hadn't occurred to me that he wasn't an admin. Support! -- Hoary 04:43, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  39. Support one of the very best. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support -WELCOME BACK!!!--Jondel 07:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Go TBSDY! -- Chuq 07:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Brookie - he say Yes - Brookie: A collector of little brown things 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Break out the fatted template, the prodigal son has returned! Grutness...wha? 07:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    CONDITIONAL support - the condition being that you DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT DUMB AGAIN! Grutness...wha?
  44. TBSDY is a great editor and admin and I was shocked to see him leave in the first place. As long as he feels relatively sure about staying this time I'ev got no quabbles about giving him back his admin powers. Mgm|(talk) 12:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  45. David Gerard 13:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Obviously. JuntungWu 15:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Welcome back. - RedWordSmith 17:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support, obviously - Guettarda 17:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. PedanticallySpeaking 17:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. I wandered over anonymously and felt the need to temporarily suspend my own self-imposed exile to cast my vote for this truly remarkable individual. You da bomb! Back to Elba... - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, um, yeah, support, I guess... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Until vandalism explained. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Of course! →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:50, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
    I would like to see an explanation for the a vandalism to Dalek. →Iñgōlemo← talk 19:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  53. Certainly. older≠wiser 02:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. You know you can't stay away from this place : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Redundant as all get out, but might as well throw my vote in. Calton | Talk 06:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. OMG, welcome back! SWAdair | Talk 06:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 06:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  58. Speedy support under general criterion 4, reposted Wikiholic who tried to quit and lasted an amazing two months before coming back. ;) I join everyone else in welcoming you back, TBSDY! sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. --G Rutter 14:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I suppose we can give him a shot, although I just don't know how he'll handle the responsibility... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  62. *must not follow crowd* ... whatever. Support; you deserve it. — Dan | Talk 03:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    ...still support despite the "vandalism" silliness. — Dan | Talk 00:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  63. This vote is ridiculous. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support- JCarriker 09:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Baaaa!!!!
    Baaaaaaaa!!!! --Theo (Talk) 10:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Obviously :) -Frazzydee|✍ 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support. Infact, I don't see the need for waiting three more days. Hedley 12:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support for all the above reasons — particularly Baaaaaaaa!!!! --Silversmith 19:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. WWTBSDYD? Golbez 20:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  70. Just having learnt of TBSDY's blessed return, I most hotly support his re-adminship. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Obviously support! Welcome back! ;) - Mailer Diablo 08:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  72. {{Rubber Stamp}}. Sietse 08:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - I've seen this user a number of times, and like what I see. David Cannon 11:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I thought this user was already an admin. ;-) --MarkSweep 01:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - This isn't a bandwagon, it's a steamroller, but I'm jumping on anyway. Fire Star 05:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. It's a redundant move by me to add my supporting vote now, but may I just say that I will certainly look to TBSDY as one of my first admin contact points. Articulte, balanced, fair...this is what we need in all our admins all the time. Congrats on your soon-TBC adminship Version 2. Harro5 07:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support the wub (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support No question. Welcome back, Ta bu. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  79. Support, though a little concerned about recent edits to Daleks. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, a pleasure. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I am sheep, sung to the song I am cow. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 03:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  82. Support. Don't be silly, ta bu. A blanking of an article that remained for 3 minutes is not something to get worked up over. A lot of other users (including current admins) do things that are far more disruptive to Wikipedia, like revert wars on popular articles. As for everyking, ignore him. His latest disruption tactic is to oppose for no foreseeable reason on RfAs. You should be flattered he hasn't opposed your RfA, he must really like you. Mark 03:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Mark :) But for now I really am withdrawing... maybe in 3 months or something. Besides, being an admin shouldn't be a big deal. That said, I do feel a bit down about it :-( - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, of course. And cheer up about the Dalek thing. dbenbenn | talk 21:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. No way, we're going to keep "the good stuff" out of your hands until you've well and truely kicked the habit! ;-) Kim Bruning 15:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a vote for oppose is a vote for intervention, I see. Unfortunately it would be totally hypocritical for me to preach against wikiholism, as I've been hitting the proverbial bottle pretty hard lately. ^^ --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    I can stop anytime I want... honest! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. His rabid inclusionism frightens me :) →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:08, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
    All I can do is point you to extreme article deletion, where I pretty much won by putting extreme article deletion on vfd. *Ta bu shi da yu bows* - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've just been dying to make that joke for months now. Change vote to support, hopefully this can be unanimous. →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:50, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  3. Support His prior record speaks for itself. Welcome back! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Switch to oppose until there is an explanation of today's article vandalism on Dalek. I cannot be confident that this is the same editor who was formerly an administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've seen him vandalize at least one article before, too. It's kinda weird. Everyking 19:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, me too. :-( At the time, I thought I could let it rest after his explanation, but since this has occurred a second time now, I have e-mailed him directly (not through the Wikipedia feature, in case the account really has been hijacked), asking what the heck was going on. It is getting kinda fishy, the name notwithstanding. (Note: this is not a vote change yet.) Lupo 19:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My e-mail bounced (550 - unknown user). I'll check tomorrow if I have an alternate e-mail address of his... Lupo 20:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It bounced? That gmail address should work... have updated this. If people want to email me, go ahead. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bad--even if it was just a demonstration, this is a dumb time to choose. I think we should let him wait another month. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not happy with the explanation. An administrator shouldn't do that kind of thing. I'll stay at oppose but would reconsider if this request was resubmitted after a month. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I personally don't like his attitude. Good deeds aside, it smacks of arrogance and it has consistently rubbed me the wrong way. I feel like I'm pretty much the only person on this earth who feels that way, but that's my vote. Mike H 20:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Good grief. I had no idea that you thought I was so arrogant! Anyway, it's a moot point now. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, once when I supposedly violated the 3RR (which I dispute), he told me if I unblocked myself, he'd block me again for a week and then request that I be desysopped. He's been nice to me since then, which makes me reluctant to oppose, but to say such a thing in the first place is just staggering to me. Everyking 20:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You did in fact violate that 3RR. This is all I have to say on that matter. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose until we get a good explanation of the recent vandalism. --Carnildo 21:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Support in a month or so, assuming TBSDY doesn't do anything else that spectacularly idiotic in the mean time. --Carnildo 03:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support without a shaddow of a doubt. Thryduulf 11:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC). Oppose Until an explanation is forthcomming regarding the apparent vandalism. Thryduulf 21:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC). I've read the explanation now, and while we do all need a bit of light releif now and again, this wasn't the way to do it. Having said that, when he was an admin before he did a lot of goog work and he wouldn't have been de-admined (I don't think) just for that. On balance, I feel the fairest vote is oppose for now. When he's firmly back in the swing of things and has gotten this sort of joke out of his system, then I'll probably vote support if he's nominated again. Thryduulf 01:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per other users. I don't know why TBSDY would vandalize Dalek, esp. when it was a featured article. "Showing people how it works" could be conducted in the sandbox, which he was surely aware of. Meelar (talk) 23:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, SqueakBox 23:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I supported, but now i OPPOSE. Because of recent actions by the nominee. I recommend that all people who voted to support look into Ta bu shi da yu's Dalek stunt.Kingturtle 00:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. For those who do not know, he intentionally blanked an article - it was a feature article - and it was a feature article being featured on the main page. He followed it with this edit. This is behavior beneath my expectations of an admin candidate. Kingturtle 00:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
or we could notice that he has withdrawn his request so the votes are no longer relivant.Geni 00:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Ta bu shi da yu: I'm feeling pretty low right now (yes, my own fault). If people could respect my decision to withdraw and stop voting, I would very much appreciate it. I feel positively terrible about the whole business and would like to put it behind me. I'm well aware that I made a really stupid mistake and I honestly don't need it pointed out anymore. In my own defense, I was making a joke. This backfired very badly (I blanked the page accidently then added the picture of the Dalek attacking soon after - the blanking was unintentional but the joke was intentional) and I'm feeling pretty down about it and am in the process of beating myself up about it. A special note to Everyking: stop sticking the knife in please. You know very well that you got yourself into hotwater over the Ashlee Simpson article. At the time you got blocked, which you didn't like no doubt, but this was done because you were under an arbcom injunction that needed to be enforced. I didn't take pleasure in blocking you and I don't thank you for introducing this into my RFA. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning that incident was not to dispute the legitimacy of the block (that was an aside), but to point out what an outrageous threat it was to say you'd block me for a week and ask for me to be de-sysopped. Everyking 22:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Leaving the project doesn't require being de-adminned, so why did you do that? Surely you expected maybe you would come back before long? I don't think a person should be so mercurial about adminship. I also disagree with the view that this doesn't need a vote. You give up your adminship and you're the same as anybody. Everyking 08:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate Everyking's honesty, and expected someone to point this out. I think that you have a point, but to answer your question, I needed to take a long break due to personal reasons and Lupo was correct in almost all his points below: I saw no reason to have an account that had admin status still on it. After all, after a period of inactivity the admin status is revoked anyway, I figured I should tell them so they don't have to revoke it without my say so. Anyway, I hope that this answers your question and concerns! I appreciate you being upfront with me, Everyking. It takes guts to sometimes ask the unpopular things. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote to strong support and will someone give this guy his adminship back already? Thanks. JRM · Talk 21:16, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  2. Whoa, TBSDY, can you explain this edit: [1]? It definitely seems uncharacteristic for you. It looks like a joke, but it involved the blanking of an article and the replacement of most of the content. Is it possible that your account has been compromised, as suggested by User:Phils on your talk page? Please respond. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong supportNeutral. The vote is appropriate, though.-gadfium 09:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC). Changed to neutral after vandalism of Dalek. May change again once an explanation is provided.-gadfium 19:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am changing my vote from support following the vandalism of Dalek. However, I will happily change my vote back if an acceptable explanation is offered. --Canderson7 20:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    I have read TBSDY's explanation of the Dalek edit. It may have been a joke, but I'm not laughing. We all act like an idiot sometimes, but I'm afraid I can't support an admin that would do something quite that foolish. --Canderson7 23:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Until an explanation fo recent events is given. BrokenSegue 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm in this line. An explanation is required. RickK 23:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Speedy promote. An admin who is de-sysopped entirely of their own volition (i.e. didn't resign amidst controversy, or jump before they were pushed) should be able to be restored on request, unless the rules have changed significantly while they've been gone. That said, Ta bu shi ya du is of course worthy of adminship and has my full support. May animals large and small explode in celebration of your return! — Trilobite (Talk) 16:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I know the self-nomination has now been withdrawn, but I still feel the need to withdraw my own vote to support as a result of the vandalism. I don't know why someone who has put so much work into Wikipedia would want to do that. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the subject matter, I thought it was a humourous attempt at making a joke. I was wrong, and I don't know how many times I'll apologise about this :-( Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In response to Everyking's remarks above:
    1. It may have been a wee bit over the top, by why leave an account with admin status enabled behind when one leaves? It struck me as very considerate, actually. Lupo 09:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "surely you expected maybe" - what kind of phrase is that? If I got it right, he felt only a pretty complete break from Wikipedia would cure his wikiholism. Lupo 09:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I read that just as Ludraman's way of saying that he thinks this is a no-brainer. Lupo 09:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Agreed. Even with adminship, one is the same as anybody. Lupo 09:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one who left the project and recently came back, I cannot speak for Ta bu shi da yu specifically. But generally, the feeling of leaving Wikipedia is so great that one feels xe has to cut every single tie with the project. So most likely TBDSY felt that a complete break also meant removing his admin status. But alas, this project is still seductive despite some of its problems, which is why I just returned. So if TBDSY wants to come back full time as an admin, he should. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we tease him a lot 'cause we've got him on the spot. Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. [2] CuteLittleDoggieLet's play! You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me? 05:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu/First nomination. Not much has changed! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_2&oldid=1191187817"