The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

VanTucky[edit]

Final (83/42/8); Ended 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky (talk · contribs) - VanTucky has been contributing since August 2006, and is a prolific contributor on a huge variety of areas: from involvement in the Signpost, GA and FA reviewing, to major contributions to the featured articles Guinea pig and Parapsychology. He regularly comments on AfD discussions (with his discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film being a particularly impressive example), reports unacceptable usernames and vandals, as well as participating in the RfC process. VanTucky often deals with subjects some editors have strong feelings about, such as homosexuality and racism, giving him a great deal of experience in dealing firmly but politely with POV pushing, talk page trolling and the practical application of our content policies. This level of experience will make VanTucky an excellent admin. Tim Vickers 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nom from Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) Vantucky has been a great contributor since I first encountered him on my rewrite of the Parapsychology article and all of my encounters with this user have been positive. I believe that Vantucky is the ideal candidate for administrator for a few simple reasons. He deals with debates well, he is a frequent contributor to ANI, AVI and bad usernames as well as countless RFA's. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept your nomination. Thank you for your vote of confidence Tim! I withdraw my nomination. VanTucky Talk 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Steven Walling snowed my 5th or 6th RfA. I'll have to look into this. Haha! You're okay Steven! the_undertow talk 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My two central areas of contribution currently with the project are article writing and reviewing GA nominations. These often go hand in hand. Administratively, as I have usually around a minimum of a thousand articles on my watchlist I do plenty of incidental vandal fighting. I'm a big stickler for the proper four warnings (part of why I have so many talk edits). I also welcome and aid many newcomers to the project, and I don't doubt sysop tools will come in handy there. Most of the RC patrolling I do is exclusively to the contributions of newbies, which (sadly) also brings to light some more traditional admin tasks, such as pages to be speedied and outright vandalism. As I have good experience with XFD - but I have rarely contributed there within the last couple months - I find myself in a good position to probably be closing AFDs (i.e. experience, but currently not embroiled in very much deletion debate). To be perfectly honest, I must say that the "big" admin powers of deleting, blocking and banning are tasks I expect to be doing sparingly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My first major area of contributing was to the aforementioned Guinea pig article, which is now FA status. I must say that most of the credit of that article goes to fellow editor Chubbles on that subject, but it was a great intro to good article writing. Parapsychology (now FA) was mostly talk edits trying to reach a neutral compromise on a very contentious subject. Other articles that I have written - a few almost entirely by myself - are: Vinkensport, Herdwick (GA-class), Wolf-dog hybrid, Tai chi chuan and Go (board game). You can see more stubs and such I have created/edited on my user page. As Tim said, I do contributing in quite a few areas, and I have made good AIV, UFAA, RFPP and other reports before.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Obviously writing on such subjects as Homosexuality, Anal sex and other topics can be stressful. Surprisingly, some of the often controversial subjects also include articles on dog breeds and such. One incident that I think really needs speaking on is my one block: This was in July, for 3RR violation on Mike Godwin. I absolutely deserved this block, and have refrained from good-faith edit warring since. The locus of the dispute - though I still should not have reverted - was really a misunderstanding of the difference between references and citations. The article contained plenty of reference material, but had hardly any inline citations. I tagged some content as needing cites, and Mike and the article's writers thought I meant that what the text said was somehow untrue. Needless to say, edit warring did not solve the problem, and it doesn't solve any problem. Other than this 3RR violation, I have never been sanctioned for name-calling or other egregious violations of civility. In terms of dealing with conflict: even when I violated 3RR, I never did so without continuing discussion on the topic. Civil discussion is the tried and true method of reaching compromise on difficult issues.
4. Optional questions from Lar - Given the phenomenon of Namespace shift, and your significant participation in GA reviews, do you expect that becoming an admin will change your focus? Why or why not? Will it change your approach to how you carry out reviews? ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: First off, Namespace shift is not a concept I was previously familiar with, so my answer may be based on a flawed understanding. But to answer your question directly, no. I have already been there and back again in terms of moving from focusing on the mainspace vs. the peripheral sphere of work. I personally think that I've settled in to my particular pattern of contribution. In terms of reviews, being an admin means nothing to me. I see no possible practical application of the sysop powers in evaluating and improving an article up for GA status (unless vandalism is disrupting the actual review); any attempt to apply the perceived authority of adminship in the realm of Good Article nominations would be inappropriate (to say the least).
Namespace shift is a very real phenomenon. I know my article production has gone down a lot after assuming other responsibilities. Whether the phenomena (or the particular application in my case) is a good or bad thing is a different question, but forewarned is half an octopus, as they say. You might find some other very interesting reading on meta, I commend anyone to it. Doing a bit of nosing around in areas other than en:wp is goodness as this is the biggest project but by no means the only one here. As for: " to apply the perceived authority of adminship " ... " would be inappropriate (to say the least)" ... Quite. Thanks for your answer and good luck. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Optional question from Dihydrogen Monoxide: What's changed? Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: That's a good question, and one I was waiting for. Responding to my first idea (don't need/want the tools), someone came to me thinking that the project needed my help as an admin. I deeply respect Tim as an administrator, and when he says that he thinks that I am a likely candidate to help in a needed area, I believe him. As to the want part, I think that may be an asset. I can certainly think of ways to help the project with the tools, but not being enormously eager to get the tools is going to give me time to ease myself into the practical problems of applying them. As to the second part, with the greater perspective that time brings, I've come to sincerely know that adminship is no big deal, in every sense of that phrase. If I have the ability to help in an area, I should for the good of the project.
6. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The policy, along with common sense and basic civility, dictates that I should contact the blocking admin about it and discuss the matter - without reverting the block. The only circumstances in which undoing a block are acceptable is in cases of obvious mistakes such as misspelled usernames. Otherwise, an unblocking should be performed only if the blocking admin and I reach a consensus that the decision was in error. As to my intentions: as I said before, blocking and banning is not something I intend to take part in on a daily basis. I personally find performing such actions on good-faith contributors to be distasteful, and I trust that my fellow admins don't take blocking lightly either. That said, even if I vehemently disagree, anything but an indef ban is going to be remedied by time. There's really no situation I can think of that is so untenable as to require a wheel war.
7 Optional Question from User:SJP Are policies something you should follow stricktly, or are the something that should be just taken into consideration?--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Policies are here to improve the project and protect it from harm. In my experience standing policy has a contingency for the majority of situations that arise. Only when following the letter of the law would cause more harm to the project is it appropriate to ignore all rules. In other words, legalese shouldn't contradict the encyclopedic principle that the policy was designed to support in the first place. Example: the spirit of PROD nominations is to provide a way of deleting pages that are inappropriate speedy candidates but are unlikely to require debate. Even if an editor removes a PROD tag after the five days has expired (i.e. the time between the expiry and what would be the deletion), the spirit of PROD says that you should take it to AFD rather than relying on the technical loophole of the "expired PROD", since someone has objected to the deletion.
8 Optional question from JetLover I remember looking at your userpage not too long ago. You had the "this user does not want to be an admin" userbox. What made you change your mind? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A See the answer to Dihydrogen Monoxide's question (number five).

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/VanTucky before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • One of my earliest interactions with VanTucky was in the context of the AfD for Angela Beesley. It was a highly polarized debate, and in my view VanTucky was one of a tiny minority of editors who was willing to re-evaluate his opinion in the face of new information and new arguments. I understand there's some concern about him "digging in his heels," and I'm not denying that opinion, merely stating that he has exhibited the opposite behavior as well.
  • More generally, I believe that it's important to have administrators who care passionately about the encyclopedia. The thing about passion is that it often brings us into contentious situations. Someone who cares deeply will undoubtedly have a few errors in judgment in their history. In my view, such a person is generally preferable to someone who merely does lots of uncontroversial tweaks, e.g. vandal fighting, and completely avoids contentious discussions. Yes, it's a balancing act; but I want to caution others against putting too much weight on any specific debate.
I continue to support VT's candidacy. I think he will use the tools well. He is actively engaged in the wiki community, and on the whole has represented and stewarded it well. Again, none of this is intended to suggest that others are "wrong" in their opinions, I just wanted to spell out my reasoning a little more thoroughly. -Pete 07:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say "well said" in regard to the second point Pete makes. Sometimes I think we now have a fair number of administrators who got to be that way by keeping their head down, never doing anything controversial, never having an opinion voiced that wasn't already clearly a runaway consensus or so bland/prevaricative that no one could take offense, and by just piling up edits with vandal reverts or gnoming. (mind you, those are both needful things!!! but not sufficient in and of themselves) Some of those admins fail fairly spectacularly the first time they have to block someone and then defend their action. And that's not good for them or the encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 09:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean that admins must be the people doing something controversial, automatically allowing themselves to be incivil in excuse of voicing their opinions for the sake of the encyclopedia and then try as hard to sanctify their actions, or they aren't worth being admins and do no good to the encyclopedia? 58.187.104.176 11:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure you already know the answer to that is "no, that's not what I meant"... You know darn well that there are difficult things that need doing. And you also already know that they do require consensus, and do not require being incivil to do them. Presumably you just posted (anonymously) to see if you can get a rise out of anyone... well, there you go. HTH HAND :) ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For any part my vigorous defense of VanTucky has played in the above opposes, I apologize. I had never interacted with this editor prior to this RfA. He was not my wiki-friend, and my defense of his candidacy was based solely on the fact that I perceive him to be a stellar editor, who has the best of the project in mind at all times. In my view, these editors should be promoted. I viewed several of the opposes as very weak in their reasoning (more a personal beef than anything really wrong with the RfA candidate) and I said so, often in terms that apparently offended other members of the community. For this, I apologize, and I hope that the opposers above will take another look at VanTucky's long list of positive contributions to WP, place them beside the few issues that have been raised in the opposes, and rethink their decisions. If they do not, that is, of course, their right as members of the community. I am just of the opinion that it would be a terrible shame to see such a good editor torpedoed at RfA. K. Scott Bailey 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to hear it, I was just composing a disruption warning for you. I have removed your personal attack below Support 75 along with Epbr123's. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • In my view, these editors should be promoted. Therein lies the problem. This is your opinion, and you simply cannot expect everyone to agree with your views, which you have made incredibly clear in your numerous comments on the matter. As far as I can see, none of the editors who voted oppose are berating the support voters, taking them apart piece by piece, and trying to tell them that their opinions and rationale are wrong. It's counterproductive in either direction, and certainly doesn't help VanTucky. ~Eliz81(C) 20:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, with those answers to the questions I wish I could vote for him twice. Tim Vickers 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Great encyclopedia building work, and good job with being honest about your mistakes. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support based on my experiences of this user. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This guy is freaking awesome and one of the best editors we have. the_undertow talk 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm SJP and I approve this message:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I was hesitant with the block from the summer, but I really think you learned from the experience. This is just the type of dedicated editor we'll need to have access to the mop. Hiberniantears 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Have worked in GA with this editor. He will make a great admin. Lara❤Love 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support have a lot of respect for this editor. — BillC talk 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Easy Support per wide variety of experience, and willingness to admit mistakes. K. Scott Bailey 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support From seeing VanTucky's work, I think that I can be certain that the community will gain from VanTucky becoming an admin. Captain panda 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support seems to merit the mop. Carlossuarez46 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support — I've seen you work excellently under pressure and you demonstrate an incredibly rare ability to stay civil at all times (for example, here). Your article work is incredible, and I'm sure you'll be very useful around here with the mop. Good luck! --Agüeybaná 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather have characterised that as a place where several of us showed that we are human, and VanTucky's minor lapses there as understandable occurances, rather than as example of his staying civil at all times. But it's not something to worry about in the long term, and no reason not to support. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - good user. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I have seen his hard work in several places; no cause for concern. --Bloodzombie 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. With the experience of thousands of edits, an encyclopedic perspective, and dedication to expand and improve Wikipedia, I support VanTucky's promotion to administrator status. Larry R. Holmgren 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 44 votes of support in less than a day. It is unanimous. Larry R. Holmgren 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Every time I've run into this editor it has been a pleasant encounter, and I've never seen an instance that would make me mistrust this user with the admin tools. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. A good, solid editor that I've seen around. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I have never seem something particulary worrying about this user's contributions during my time here, now that IP editing is going to be enabled even without consensus we will certainly need more admins and this user is a great candidate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes. Maser (Talk!) 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've met VanTucky in person, & he struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent person. He's also taller than his username would suggest. -- llywrch 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support VanTucky is an ideal candidate for adminship, I glad to see someone as wise and intelligent decide to accept a nom, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? will be for others.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Jmlk17 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - experienced editor whose approach to contentious issues is calm and polite without backing down to fringe theorists and trolls. Will make an excellent admin. Euryalus 11:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, all good stuff here. Neil ☎ 12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Seems to spend too much time editing Wikipedia, other than that he is a fine editor and very civilized. Haiduc 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support (too much time spent here? don't we all?), clearly has valuable skills we should be taking advantage of. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per Tim Vickers, and per VT's contribs. Although I rather often found myself disagreeing with the way he comments (esp. opposes) on RfAs, that doesn't mean I don't trust him with the tools. I hope (and assume) that VanTucky himself understands that difference. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) To provide one example of what I mean: There are two doubtful concepts involved in this comment, revolving around the use of "deserve" and "powers". Still not a reason not to support. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that that particular comment isn't a solid argument. If you want more explanation of why I think Lara is qualified, I could go on for hours. I strayed in to hyperbole with that comment because I think Lara is so strong a candidate. VanTucky Talk 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries there, I agree that Lara is a strong candidate, and my support of her is of comparable weakness because I think it's apparent to most. — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a different note: Civility is important, but it's still far over-rated on Wikipedia, especially when compared to professional attitude, knowledge, and writing skills. Needless to say, I very much agree with Lar's response to Pete in the discussion section above. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic question in this RfA appears to have shifted towards whether we want VT to take a "time out" and prove that he has learned the lesson regarding civility and keeping his cool before applying again, or whether we trust that he has learned it already. I personally believe the latter to be the case, which is why I stand by my support. However, consensus appears to be swinging in the other direction, which I think is not a dramatic issue, but a bit unfortunate, since it reinforces the stupid trend of punishing a fellow user with a record of strong contribs rather than assuming good faith for which there is a very good basis here. And in the end, the community is just punishing itself through not giving the extra buttons to a strong user. But the last part is really just my own opinion. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I am a bit late but this is my support Van Tucky ← A very calm and reasonable contributor. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A good editor who is willing to learn from his past mistakes. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I might not agree with the candidate all of the time. However, he's a strong contributor, trustworthy and a good encyclopedia-builder. He'll make a fine admin. Majoreditor 13:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support good editor, can be trusted with the tools. Johnbod 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - of course. Addhoc 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support. I have worked a lot over the last year or so with this helpful and energetic editor, always willing to lend a hand. He'll remember me as User:Fire Star. This one will make a fine admin, IMO. --Bradeos Graphon 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support'. While I dissented at the time over said AfD, I understood his arguments, and now agree with him. A good editor with good judgment, so will be a find admin. Bearian 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Rudget Contributions 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support NHRHS2010 talk 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Sterling fellow. Skomorokh incite 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Experienced user, shall make a good admin. Húsönd 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - As Co-Nom. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Now you can help clear backlogs at RFPP rather than expand them. :) Acalamari 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, looks good. --Coredesat 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support--MONGO 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Said something good about something or other that I commented on so..umm..yeah...no but seriously, clearly a beneficial presence about the place. hop aboard. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support As one of wikipedia' most prolific WP:GA contributor, I can attest to his great work at WP:GAC. Even my controversial interactions such as that found at Haystacks (Monet) have been resolved well. He is guardian of the project. When we disagree such as at Greg Skrepenak, I feel he is probably right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Should definitely be an admin- great user. GDonato (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Will definitely make a good admin. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support cool. Sumoeagle179 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) in light of new postings below, have to change.Sumoeagle179 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Though he strongly opposed my RfA, and was highly critical of me in several respects, he also stood up against unfair treatment toward me. That tells me he is a man of good character, and to me, character is king in an administrator. I cannot imagine him abusing the tools. - Crockspot 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments Crockspot, they mean a lot to me. VanTucky Talk 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. We don't always agree, but VanTucky is always respectful of my opinion and those of others, and willing to talk things through. He's shown the flexibility to change his opinion in light of new arguments or information, which is a key qualification in my view. I've had the opportunity to collaborate with VanTucky off-wiki as well, which has been a pleasure. I don't know whether he will use the admin tools, but I can't imagine him abusing the privilege in any way. -Pete 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, though he opposed me too, I think VanTucky has grown into a fine editor who will wield the mop well. Dreadstar † 02:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) After the response to Annalisa Ventola and the Godwin diffs provided below, I'm sorry, but I must change to oppose at this time. Dreadstar † 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support An excellent editor who will act with integrity as an admin. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I know this user to be very trustworthy. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Phgao 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, what I have seen from him is good, and apparently most others have the same impression. I need to support more people for adminship, and VanTucky isa good one to start with! Fram 09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Ling.Nut 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Can be trusted with the admin tools since he has valuable real life experience and has productively worked on many articles in the past. Havelock the Dane Talk 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Looks qualified.--θnce θn this island Speak! 15:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support without reservations. John Carter 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support We don't always agree when we have been in discussions, but I DO agree that he would make an excellent administrator. No reservations at all. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support likewise. Great answers to the questions: now I can just put "see VanTucky's answer" if I get asked the same ;-) Geometry guy 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support He clearly has sound knowledge of the guidelines and policies, is a wonderful editor and when we were in discussions, I found him to be very pleasant. I think he'll make an excellent admin. AngelOfSadness talk 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Having seen User talk:Alison/VanTucky, it's not as bad as I originally thought. And your comments to my neutral got me... Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (even if he was only Neutral on my RFA ;-) ) But seriously, I think he'll be a hell of an admin. I have a lot of respect for him...Balloonman 09:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to oppose per repeated use of the word "fucking" in responses to other editors as noted below.Balloonman 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Answers to the questions looked good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I offered to nominate VanTucky a few months ago, and I must say that I'm surprised to see this RfA active from the strength of his decline back then. Nevertheless, I have no qualms in supporting him here. V.T. is a high-profile user, and sustains high leve-headedness throughout his contributions here. He definitely knows his stuff, and I often see him around MfD and AfD. VanTucky contributes to the article space as well as the typical sysop. stuff, including AIV and AN3. Admittedly, he's a fairly controversial guy, and I can imagine he's got some users who aren't a fan of him, but then some of our best Administrators are - I say confidently, VanTucky is more than able of joining them. Anthøny 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. While the opposes have merit, the most bothersome event is from almost three months ago and the others are not really serious enough to warrant an oppose. I believe VanTucky will make a fine admin. -- John Reaves 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify; it's not the incivility stuff from three months back, it's the accompanying intransigence that concerns me. The fact that he demonstrated it then and is doing it again here in spades. The guy digs his heels right in, cannot possibly be wrong and labours a point to death and beyond. This is not a good trait in an admin. Confrontations of the sort that I'm seeing below after my one simple "oppose" gives me great pause for concern. Giano, as is his manner, put it rather blunter than I did but the point still stands. - Alison ❤ 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is patently untrue. How does the answer to Sirex below, "In no way do I still think I was right. Saying it was "courage" or "guts" is complete hyperbole, and is an incorrect application of IAR" an inability to admit I was wrong? Since you brought the incident up, I have labored to make it clear that I understand I was in the wrong. Oppose all you want, but don't make me out to be doing something I'm not. I have multiple times here said I was wrong where I obviously was. Not agreeing with every opposer's accusation is not the same as complete intransigence. VanTucky Talk 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Patently untrue" is it? (or "that is false", as you said in the edit summary. I was clarifying my opinion here, that's all. It's not "true" or "false" or whatever; it's just my opinion. My goodness! Leaving that nonsense aside about the courage and guts, etc, what I'm still seeing here is intransigence and a hectoring attitude that is not becoming of an admin. Seriously. My support comments for RfAs usually contain the word "kindness". The whole idea of letting things go, skipping over some newbie's mistakes when you could quite easily do otherwise. Assuming good faith in all cases. I'm not seeing a whole lot of these things in you. Not a single one of your 'support' messages uses the word "kindness" - Alison ❤ 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent places where I admitted I was wrong: here, here, here, here and here. VanTucky Talk 01:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point here - Alison ❤ 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be a bit of a jerk here. I don't think it's VT who's missing the point, Alison. And I don't think "intransigence" means what you think it means. Intransigence does not mean, "willing to lie down and let Alison spread falsehoods about oneself." It means, "Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising." This is per the American Heritage Dictionary. VT posted diffs showing times he compromised/admitted he was wrong. This puts the lie to your claims of intransigence. I think all who have read the thread here understand your position: you're opposing him because he was rude to you once. That's fine. We get it. But don't try to make his mistake in how he treated you that time into some kind of character flaw that disqualifies him from adminship. Thank god I'm never going to stand for this abuse. I admire and respect anyone willing to put themselves through this kind of petty BS to get the tools, which is why I participat in so many of them. Good editors being scrutinized like this need someone who can call it like it is. K. Scott Bailey 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've about made your point now. I'm done here now. Fortunately, it's VanTucky who's running here and not you, though one could be mistaken for thinking otherwise. Still missing the point, BTW - Alison ❤ 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support don't think the oppose rationales are enough to make me oppose. User clearly has long-term experience and has been overall beneficial to the project.--Jersey Devil 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support I'm against incivility in any form but I'm not sure the opposers have really demonstrated that incivility is an issue here. Being abrasive (for want of a better word) is not a great trait in an admin, but I think/hope Vantucky has demonstrated that he has learnt from past issues. Given the otherwise excellent contribution history, I feel this user will be able to deal with the rigour that come from being an admin (provided that an admin takes admin action) and on balance believe that he will be an asset to the administrative team. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I figured it was a matter of time before his RfA came up. Excellent contributions in a variety of areas (mainspace, vandal fighting, etc). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support This editor is a valuable contributor to the Good Articles project, and I think can be trusted. Dr. Cash 06:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I trust him I've seen him around, will make a great admin---Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Not especially incivil. Epbr123 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. I don't find the opposes worrisome at all. One man's everyday discourse is another man's incivility, I suppose. User:Veesicle 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care for editing user comments nor warnings about civility etc, but will you kindly revise your support by removing what could be a personal attack. This has seriously gone on long enough. the_undertow talk 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but let it be known that I heartily disapprove of Mr Bailey showing up at every RfA and hassling opposers. User:Veesicle 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a valid concern and I do appreciate the modification of your support. You show good character by doing so. the_undertow talk 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Brilliant work and great all-round experience. This user displays a wealth of knowledge and understanding when it comes to using Wikipedia. And I would just like to add that many of us say things we shouldn't when coming under pressure, it has happened to me before on or two occasions and we just learn from people pointing it out to us and through experience. Good luck. Lradrama 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support His GA review work is highly valued here. But can he better the project through the use of the tools? I think so! Spellcast 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Good interactions with the candidate at Talk:Veganism, and I'm impressed by his and WDM's Herculean task of cleaning up parapsychology. Skinwalker 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support; some of the oppositions below might have made me hesitate to support, if they were relevant to recent behavior. I've looked through the recent activity from VT and I see nothing that makes me think he will abuse the tools. He sometimes is a little more curt than you'd expect from an admin, but I think he got the point by now and will be more careful. — Coren (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak support I believe VanTucky has a good track record in creating & improving content. There's plenty of relevant experience in administrative areas and collaborative efforts as well. I doubt this editor would ever abuse the tools. That said, VanTucky can be awfully abrasive, as demonstrated in several separate incidents linked below. I find myself in this section of the RfA, rather than neutral or even a weak oppose, because VanTucky has shown a capacity to admit mistakes and a willingness to accept constructive criticism. So here's mine: I support now because I expect stepped-up vigilance from VanTucky in the arenas of civility and good-faith assumptions, whether this RfA passes or not; this project cannot survive on content submissions alone, but requires an environment conducive to collaboration, and a few sour interactions can spoil that. Good luck. — Scientizzle 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak support (switched from oppose) - problem with civility but still a good guy with strong contributions. I'm confident that he has learnt some lessons and will do well with mop. @pple complain 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Seems to get it even with the occasional slip up. --DHeyward 06:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I have had good interactions with VanTucky and find his work valuable. jmcw 08:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support after looking at his contributions. Issues if any seem to be minor.Biophys 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Wikipedia needs more administrators like VanTucky. ScienceApologist 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I'd be willing to bet he's learned from his mistakes. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 908, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Circuit 2002). --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - per comment mentioned by Daniel below. I've restored it to User_talk:Alison/VanTucky for those who wish to see it. As a regular patroller on WP:RFPP, I was disappointed to see you discussing using page protection to preserve Wikipedia's sanctity. The "apology", "Nevermind, User:Deskana had the guts to do what you could not." ... isn't, to be honest. Total lack of AGF there. This is not the kind of behaviour I would have expected from an admin, sorry - Alison ❤ 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that User:Deskana is a bureaucrat and in the case mentioned, it was entirely appropriate for him to take action where I could not. In the contentious case of someone's RfA, a 'crat should make the call on who can or cannot contribute. This is not a simple matter of preserving sanctity or whatever, but a matter of interfering with an RfA - not something to be taken lightly nor something for which there was precedent - Alison ❤ 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the apology was the later post where he said "First off, let me back up and apologize for being personal. I don't think that falls under WP:NPA, as it is my right to make an evaluation of your judgement in admin tasks. But I should have used more civil language." and you then replied "Apology accepted." To say that VanTucky didn't apologise isn't very fair. Tim Vickers 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked and you're largely right. Here's the reply; "First off, let me back up and apologize for being personal. I don't think that falls under WP:NPA, as it is my right to make an evaluation of your judgement in admin tasks. But I should have used more civil language." - Alison ❤ 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the dates, and thinking that this was in reference to my own RfA. If that is the case, I would like to point out that it was a quite trying ordeal for all involved, with much flying fur and many people rubbed completely raw. Possibly even one of the ugliest RfA's in WP history. My rationale for supporting VT is based upon his behavior in that situation. I didn't see these specific remarks at the time, but if this is an isolated incident with him, I think he should be cut a little slack, and given the benefit of the doubt. Just my two cents. - Crockspot 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much the personal attack (denied as being such, though apologised for), but for the way in which he was eager to go to war over it, not assume good faith on my part, all the while not realizing that it was properly a matter for a bureaucrat to address given the sensitivity surrounding that particular RfA, as you point out yourself - Alison ❤ 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a particularly unpleasant situation, and everyone is entitled to a mistake now and then. His behavior elsewhere does not indicate a chronic problem, so I am inclined to chalk this one up to a trying day. As I implied in my support statement, I appreciated his willingness to go to bat, even though he personally opposed me. - Crockspot 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable assessment Alison, but how does this represent more than an isolated incident? Opposing on an RFA isn't about punishing me for one case of bad behavior, it's about rejecting candidates which show a pattern of behavior that makes them unsuitable. I don't. VanTucky Talk 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-indent) This isn't about 'punishment', so please don't assume that here. Heading back into AGF territory again. It's about my discomfort with your decision making in a high-pressure situation, something that happens on an almost daily basis around here. Using WP:IAR as a later excuse for this during your apology doesn't cut it with me, as it's a classic case of when IAR should not be used, in my opinion. And that leaves me uncomfortable - Alison ❤ 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't accusing you of trying to do so, I was speaking rhetorically. Again, I don't think your reasoning is completely sound here. If there are high-pressure situations on an almost daily basis (true), and in such situations I only once have reacted poorly, how does it show a pattern of misjudgement? VanTucky Talk 22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is an open discussion in a page move archive, no need for Special:Undelete links, it can be viewed by anyone here,What happen from what I was able to trace back is sockpuppets and SPA were canvassing an RfA in order to vote stack which was brought up in a conversation on ANI in it there are three other editors that believed as a result of the sockpuppetry that page protection should be applied in which VanTucky stated that he had "formally requested a semiprotect" which he did here when page protection was declined by User:Alison on the ground that "anonymous/new accounts are entitled to comment" & "activity isn't that high and SPAs are easily identified", VanTucky believe that WP:IAR should had been applied for what normally a bureaucrat's job to protect RfA page, VanTucky made the assumption this was due to a lack of courage on Alison's part using the word 'guts', Alison replied that it's "not the call of an admin at that point and requires bureaucrat intervention and WP:IAR does not apply" My question to VanTucky (A) Do you still believe it was a lack of courage on Alison's part to deny page protection. (you did say even after the apology that "to perform an application of IAR, does take courage. I think your call was wrong, and I stick by that") and (B) As an Administrator if you came across a similar circumstances today in a RfA would you unilaterally page protect a RfA rather then taking it to bureaucrat intervention (WP:BN) on the grounds of WP:IAR?▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer to that Sirex is: (A) In no way do I still think I was right. Saying it was "courage" or "guts" is complete hyperbole, and is an incorrect application of IAR. I was angry, and speaking in anger didn't produce sound judgement (obviously). For more on IAR, see my answer to SJP. (B) When thinking about what I would do if I was in Alison's shoes, I wouldn't hesitate to deny the request and refer the user making the request to the bureaucrats. VanTucky Talk 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (copy edit, a case of double negatives) I think you meant you would "deny the request and refer the user making the request to the bureaucrats" With that, I still support your nom, being that you admit that comment you made 3 months ago was "incorrect application of IAR" and that Alison was correct on her call, thank you for your answer.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (copy edit self,"wouldn't hesitate" through me off) (slap head))▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect application of IAR notwithstanding, VanTucky's instincts as to the nature of the situation at the RfA were 100% on the nose. The two "established" users who dragged out all of my off-wiki messages were both banned not long after for being the socks of banned users. While he could have kept a cooler head, he was right. The ability to accurately analyze an ongoing situation is a valuable trait in an admin. - Crockspot 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not go into it anymore. Whether or not the RFA ultimately needed protecting is irrelevant to my conduct with Alison (which is the issue at hand). VanTucky Talk 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just pointing out that, while you made a mistake and treated someone poorly, you were doing good work simultaneously, in good faith, in defense of the project. While it is good to clear the air, I don't feel this isolated incident deserves an oppose. But I'll drop it. - Crockspot 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue in hand is not your conduct with me - Alison ❤ 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alison, with all due respect, you should know better than to oppose per such an isolated situation which was the result of one the most heated RfA discussions in recent times. Such things should ideally be cleared up with the user in question, and not be conserved for when s/he runs at RfA. But that's just the inclusionist supporter talking out of me... — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow, I don't think his RfA will tank on the strength of my one oppose. My opinion and entitled to it. I'd not even known he was running until today. It's just a general overall bad feeling about this candidate. Given some of the other commentary at User_talk:VanTucky/Archive_5 regarding the policy re. vandalism, I feel justified in being concerned. Nothing personal, just my opinion. Not some bizarre "punishment" either. Even the way in which this one oppose is being defended to the death gives me pause for concern. But hey - onwards we go - Alison ❤ 00:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And another thing; per User_talk:VanTucky/Archive_7#Your_comment_on_Alison.27s_page, you didn't even apologize until three or four admins and a 'crat called you on it. Instead, you dug in your heels and made comments about my protect decline as being "knee-jerk" - what was that all about??? Digging your heels in as you did then and as you are doing now is not a good thing in an admin. There's a point in which you need to let go, and a point in which it's in everyone's interests to step back. I'm not sure you understand that - Alison ❤ 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I agree that we've spent too much time on this. But as to "as you are doing now", please see my answer above to Sirex's questions. The point I've been trying to make is that I recognize I was completely wrong. Of course, if you still feel I'm untrustworthy, then I don't there's anymore to be said on the matter. VanTucky Talk 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My one, short oppose got blown competely out of proportion. It wasn't my intention to dwell on it here, yet here we are. Onwards we go (again) - Alison ❤ 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I think Van Tucky's aggressiveness in defending his GA review of SS Christopher Columbus — not a page I've had anything to do with — was completely inappropriate. I would rather not see admins throwing their weight about in this manner.[1] Bishonen | talk 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    In terms of my attitude to the relationship to GA reviewing and adminship, please see Question 4. That sums up my feelings. You'll also notice that the nominator and I have since reconciled, and that I amicably contributed to the process afterwards. VanTucky Talk 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, neither your answer to Question 4 nor your later reconciliation with Lar are really the point. As you say in answer 4, admin powers are irrelevant to reviewing, and of course I don't expect you to somehow use them there. Altogether I'm not concerned that you'll misuse any of the tools—I'd need far better reasons before I suggested such a thing, and indeed I take you to be an editor of honesty and integrity. The red flag for me is that I don't want to hear your admin work, or anybody's, couched in the "power voice" that strikes me disagreeably in your reviewing. (I've heard it in other reviews besides the one I mention, though I can't now recollect where.) I'm sorry I can't think of a more tactful way of putting it, I'm not trying to be nasty, but I believe an RFA is the place to be open about relevant concerns. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd characterise things as "reconciled" between us. That tends to carry a connotation of both parties seeing where they erred and deciding to do better. I think it's more a case of meatball:ForgiveAndForget, that is, I did not agree with your approach to that GA nom, but rather than make a big deal about it, I decided to just let it go, because moving the article forward was more important (and I admit, I STILL have designs on that article for FA, it would be my first one if I can get it to where it needs to be) than getting you to admit your approach was less than optimal. I think there is a real concern that if you use that same approach to things as an admin, you'll run into difficulty. Admins need to be willing to admit they made mistakes, and work speedily to correct them, rather than digging in and insisting they are right at all costs. (hey, nobody's perfect, this is a flaw I recognise in myself too!) Again, I don't see this as a big enough thing to oppose you over at this point, I'm optimistic that when you read this, or at the worst when you get the tools, you'll mature a bit and your approach will not appear to be so haughty and process wonky and unwilling to admit fault. But I think Bishonen's and Maralia's concerns over this incident, and those of others relating to other incidents, are valid... and you need to internalise them, and take them on board, and change your approach, instead of digging in and insisting you're right. An RfA is sometimes a place to take on board criticism and decide to change. I've seen it happen before and sometimes the result is an admin I regard very very highly. And sometimes I've seen the admin NOT take the criticism on board, feeling vindicated by the margin, and go on to go down in flames. Which will you be? ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the constructive criticism Lar. I'll try my best to take it to heart. VanTucky Talk 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. While VanTucky clearly seems to be an experienced, committed, and widely respected editor, I think he is an inappropriate candidate for adminship. An admin must show consistent civility and grace under pressure, must give encouragement to users even while making policy mistakes known, must engage respectfully with users working on topics the admin finds fluffy, and must have the patience to carefully read and respond to any debate in which the admin involves her/himself. In my experience with VanTucky, he failed to do these things.
    I encountered him during my recent first FAC experience, a self-nom for Cillian Murphy. My problem is not that he opposed the article's FAC (he wasn't alone), but rather the careless and rude manner in which he conducted himself. In his short opposition review, he made two criticisms, and I immediately took (time-consuming) action to address both and fully outlined my actions on the FAC page; at the same time, I disagreed in part with both criticisms and explained why. Yet he did not return to the FAC to discuss any of this, even after I dropped him a respectful note on his talk page. In his absence, I continued to take his criticisms into account as the FAC moved forward; after I mentioned to another reviewer, Wikidudeman, that I had taken action on VanTucky's criticisms, VanTucky suddenly chimed in again -- three weeks later: "I would not say you had addressed my issues, you simply attacked them..." Because I strongly disagreed with him about some of his points, he equated that with an attack -- he never acknowledged that I made changes to the article at his behest (much less deigned to discuss them with me, so I did the best I could). He then went on to reiterate one of his original criticisms, condemning the entire article's tone in a patronizing, dismissive manner and without citing any supporting examples beyond the single one he'd initially cited (which I'd already reworded at his behest). I responded, but once again he didn't reply to my comments. JayHenry, at his own initiative, politely asked VanTucky to return to the FAC, requesting concrete examples of the alleged tone problem to work on and offering to help find middle ground, but VanTucky never returned to the FAC. I was left feeling like he had involved himself in the FAC very quickly and arrogantly, and in a manner blithely dismissive of the hard work of a fellow editor (FA-worthy or not). If he'd truly engaged with me and the text, in a timely and thorough way, I would have been disappointed at his opposition, but I would have had respect for it. I feel strongly that this is the kind of behavior that discourages wider participation in higher level work on Wikipedia and it is not the kind of behavior admins should exhibit. This was my first FAC, and even if VanTucky found me annoying in some way, a candidate for adminship must rise above and behave in an exemplary, constructive, helpful manner. I imagine that with the tide of support here, my opposition to this RfA will probably be set aside along with others' concerns, but I wanted to go on the record. Perhaps this can be something that VanTucky may bear in mind during his future tenure as an admin and his continued focus on reviewing. --Melty girl 08:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, this is MeltyGirl's only interaction with me, and I stridently disagree with her assessment of the situation above. I was never uncivil, I simply disagreed with her on content. My comments were immediately attacked quite viciously from the first and I didn't want to continue the discussion, until I saw that WikiDudeman agreed. Once again, after commenting on the content, I was viciously berated for daring to disagree. I simply didn't care enough about that FAC to work in such an environment, so I disengaged. Besides which, an obvious majority of those commenting on the FAC disagreed with my request for certain edits. If not wanting to get into a pointless battle over a minor point that I wasn't going to win anyway is not admin-like behavior, so be it. VanTucky Talk 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that this is my only interaction with VanTucky, but does that matter, in the context of multiple civility complaints? I encourage people to read the FAC archive and other links above. In no way did I "attack" his comments "quite viciously from the first" or "viciously berate" him -- that is completely untrue. In fact, I immediately made changes to the article based on his comments, even while I disagreed with some of his other comments strongly. All my comments were based in the text and backed up with supporting arguments and examples. I think civility, AFG, and defensiveness are an issue for this candidate. --Melty girl 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, the fact that you would bring up this FAC where I made very few comments as a civility issue is extremely surprising. I still see no evidence of specific instances where I violated civility and assume good faith in speaking about the content of Cillian Murphy. You have not provided one diff where I said something personal, much less rude. I think saying you immediately made changes per my request is also untrue. How is that possible if another editor made the exact same points as I some time afterwards? For you to make sweeping generalizations about my ability to be civil and assume good faith as the product of one dispute that centered solely on content is absurd. VanTucky Talk 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I need to quote the FAC archive to remind you of the changes I made? It's all there plain as day. I immediately changed the wording of a sentence and I moved a gazillion sources up from the body of the article up to the lead. Then I came back and marked off my changes as  Done and explained to you what I'd done, and I also told you on your talk page that I'd made changes. Why would I lie about this while providing the links to these threads? People can read the FAC archive and check the edit history of Cillian Murphy on September 25th (the day after your original oppose) if they care to verify that I am telling the truth. The fact that you don't even know that I made changes at your behest says a lot about the cavalier way you opposed and ran. On a separate issue you've now raised, I didn't mean to make sweeping generalizations; I merely intended to relate my individual experience, then refer to the other people here who speak of your incivility -- many people seem to do this at RfA. And as for my individual experience, I am finding it very interesting that you can't hear anything that I've said here and seek simply to try to discredit me, imply that since I only encountered you once it doesn't count, say that I viciously attacked you, that what I'm saying is a minor thing but that it's not true anyway, etc., etc. I suppose that since I am a newcomer, and don't already know everyone here, that's a smart approach. Also, I must add a response about "one dispute centered solely on content" -- if you read my original comment above, you'll find that what I'm talking about is how you conducted yourself throughout the FAC, not about the content. --Melty girl 06:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) --Melty girl 06:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose from neutral. I was under the impression that you recongised your mistake in your comments to Alison, but this display both ruins that and further casts doubts, in my mind, about whether I want you to be an administrator. I was willing to let a single incident pass because I believed you had admitted you were wrong, but that archived discussion and your responses above have tainted that belief. I feel I must oppose this RfA. Daniel 08:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Back to neutral again. I'll make my mind up shortly, I hope :) Daniel 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Incivility as shown by the examples by Daniel and Alison. If you cannot keep your cool with an administrator, how would you do against a troll? Call it bad faith if you wish, but I am unwilling to support this nomination this time. --DarkFalls talk 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. VanTucky has been uncivil toward me and other editors working on parapsychology-related articles on several occasions. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wouldn't mind providing diffs, that would be very helpful. Often what one person might consider "uncivil" isn't actually uncivil per policy. This distinction is important, which is why diffs are helpful. K. Scott Bailey 13:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, most of the problems I had with this user happened in a sandbox rewrite of the parapsychology article, which has since been deleted. If you could help me figure out get diffs from User:Wikidudeman/Parapsychology, I might be able to list them. Otherwise, all I have to present at the moment is a taunting message that VanTucky left on my user talk page after the parapsychology earned GA status despite my suggestion that the article wasn't ready yet. Additionally, here is evidence of VanTucky being incivil to another editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalisa Ventola (talk • contribs) 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you bring up an incident from three months ago. It is not July anymore Annalisa, and honestly it sickens me that you would continue to hold a grudge because I disagreed with your approach to parapsychology articles. As to allegations of incivility on the rewrite of Parapsychology, that's absurd. Opposing someone's suggestions on content is not a violation of civility. I certainly think WikiDudeman, coordinator of that rewrite, can vouch for me there. If I was so uncivil there, why have not ever been brought up in numerous official actions taken surrounding the topic? There have been not one, but two ArbCom cases focusing on the conduct of editors as concerns this subject, and I was not ever considered for even a warning. VanTucky Talk 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three months is not that long ago, VanTucky. Today, I looked over several talk page discussions and was reminded of those moments when you had been helpful in the past and suspect that you are probably an assest to Wikipedia in many ways. But you lose your temper, and I wouldn't consider that acceptable behavior from an admin. Coming over to my talk page to do a victory dance would not be acceptable behavior for an admin. Neither is characterizing fellow editors comments as a "little tirade". Additionally, you have a tendency to mischaracterize what others are saying, as you have done above. I don't hold a grudge against you. I just think that you can be rude and dismissive sometimes and would prefer not to see you in a position of power because of that. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your sweeping characterization of my attitude and behavior. Nevertheless, you've certainly explained your position thoroughly, and it's not unreasonable as an oppose (my disagreement notwithstanding). VanTucky Talk 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vantucky was brash and bold at my rewrite of the Parapsychology article, however I never found him to be rude or incivil or even problematic. He was VERY helpful in improving the article and helping me with the rewrite. The rewrite involved numerous previously problematic (and currently banned) editors who made the rewrite quite difficult. However in my opinion Vantucky did nothing that caused any problems. While being brash isn't always a good thing, His brashness was not too extreme and in the months since the rewrite he has become much more patient. His contributions to the rewrite were very important and the article is currently a Featured Article, he did nothing that slowed it down and only helped it. Very good with working with other people in my opinion. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. They further explain your position, but, in my opinion anyway, they don't justify an oppose. However, as VT pointed out above, you have every right to oppose, and you've explained your position clearly. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 00:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - per Alison. User is too incivil. "Knee-jerk denial"? I couldn't accept such comment. @pple complain 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it's your right to oppose for whatever reasons you find useful. But you should know, this happened once, was apologized for, and is now admitted by the editor to have been a mistake. If every RfA candidate is disallowed for one mistake, we'll soon have no new admins at all. K. Scott Bailey 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Having read the above and researched the candidate it is better he waits a few more months before applying for adminship, a status he does not need at present anyway. He needs to be a little more tolerant and collegiate in his approach. Please don't question this vote, as some are doing above, as I shall not be changing my mind or commenting further. Giano 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and as such you can't enjoin people from commenting on your oppose, especially when it's not based on any real concerns with this editor. What does "a status he does not need at present anyway" even mean? And as for being "tolerant and collegiate", I'm pretty sure you meant "collegial", and this user has demonstrated that in spades, save one noted instance, which has been apologized for, as well as the mistake it was admitted. And for the record, this comment isn't for your benefit. It's for anyone who might actually be considering opposing based upon what you wrote. K. Scott Bailey 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiresome, tedious people, God preserve us from them. Giano 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment wasn't for your benefit, as you had already made it well known that you were intractable. In fact, I thought you said you wouldn't be "commenting further"? I guess you just couldn't resist a personal attack on someone who dared ignore your instructions as to commenting on your oppose. K. Scott Bailey 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I changed my mind when I saw the way you are running up and down this page boring everyone to death with your arguments which are making no one change their minds at all. Have you no pages to edit - are you the candidate? Or just his manager? No, that is not a personal attack either, its just my opinion of those who try to counter every view which does not happen to coincide with their own. I seem to remember Mr. VanTucky is similarly intransigent. So I suggest you watch and learn. Giano 00:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already made clear I wasn't trying to change your mind. I simply wanted to make sure that anyone reading your oppose knew what his actualy behavior had consisted of, including apology and admitting of the mistake. As to VanTucky's temperament, his is much more even than mine. I'm a jerk on a regular basis. He's not. Which was my point. And what happened to your not commenting further? And again, you'd do well to avoid personal attacks in a forum so closely watched by administrators. (For the record--not Giano, but those reading--to my knowledge, I had never interacted with VanTucky prior to this RfA.) K. Scott Bailey 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really are becoming very tiresome. I was evaluating all the candidiate's behavior not just the events to which you refer. Please stop trying to rubbish the views of others when you clearly do not understand them. Giano 09:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    K. Scott Bailey: Please stop trying to refute every oppose in depth. The opposers are raising valid points in many cases (and I especially refer to Giano's points here), and they are entitled to their opinions. It's one thing to ask them to clarify, but if you engage in too much back and forth you are doing the candidate a disservice, in my view. The candidate himself has acknowledged the validity of many of these issues in what I think is a constructive and positive way with a resolve to try to keep them in mind. Because of that, I am hopeful, as I said above, that the opposes will be taken on board by him in the spirit offered, as constructive criticism, and that if confirmed, VanTucky will go on to be a successful admin. Others feel the issues are too strong at this time and want to see more time first or other things done to address them. That is their perogative and it's not really something you can refute. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Due to this response: "It is not July anymore Annalisa, and honestly it sickens me that you would continue to hold a grudge because I disagreed with your approach to parapsychology articles." Also, I feel disturbed that he even needed to respond, let alone do so as a personal attack. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some rule I missed where the candidate can't respond to criticism? I was prepared to leave this oppose to fall on its own, until that last sentence. That's simply ludicrous to say that you're "disturbed that he even needed to respond." Amazing what people will base an oppose on. K. Scott Bailey 01:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was mainly the manner of the response. And given that he's winning, I'm just wondering why he feels such a need. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just changed my oppose. I think his response to Annalisa is enough of a reason to oppose- sorry, because otherwise I'd change to support. But I do not find that he acted badly in the previous discussions of parapsychology- on pages which have not been deleted anyway. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Martin. I'm glad I'm not the only person to notice how rude and dismissive his response was above. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Per the repy given to User:Annalisa Ventola apart from 3 months not being a very short time ago, the response does not seem very civil. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Discussions only get more contentious once one becomes an admin, as the stakes get even higher. I have seen far too many decent editors become problem admins. An editor with an existing pattern of uncivil discourse as a non-admin augurs ill for any improvement as an admin. I will be more than happy to reconsider based on future changes. Alansohn 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: There are temperament issues that are outstanding, and the user is also hip deep in some of the sieve work of the various projects. Projects are fine. Like the poor, they will be with us always. However, vehement editing of minutia is misplaced, and one's edit count gets awfully inflated with changing a character here or there (i.e. these are changes, not edits). When the temperamental editing is combined with the rage over projects, we have a pretty sure predictor of future trouble. Geogre 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Alansohn pretty much sums up my view. With the diffs people have brought up above and how you've responded at this RfA, I am concerned about civility and ability to diffuse situations, and also what Alison referred to as kindness. I have no qualms with your contributions as an editor, but since in many ways an admin is an ambassador for the 'pedia, I personally value communication ability just as highly as other judgment calls. ~Eliz81(C) 20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Alison, MeltyGirl, etc. Jeffpw 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Opposeper temperament issues cited by previous opposers. ViridaeTalk 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per issues brought by Daniel, Alison, Bishonen, Annalisa and some others as well as the comments left by candidates at this very page to the opposers. --Irpen 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose the concerns given by the above opposers are too much for me to vote any other way. SashaCall 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agonizingly, because I like VanTucky a lot and my interactions with him have been quite positive. I had witnessed isolated incidents of concern, but it appears from the evidence above to be a pattern. I was unhappy at Murphy FAC, you basically said Melty was a fangirl, and committed "egregious" errors, when she followed an accepted practice of not using citations in the lead. She was new to FAC. And we should always go out of our way to help newbies with patience and kindness, rather than insult them. When she added citations you refused to acknowledge that she made changes (and still refuse above to acknowledge this). The Alison incident; the SS Christopher Columbus, this AFD (full disclosure, I disagreed but mildly) where you aggressively responded to almost every single comment in opposition to your nom; similarly, this nom. Those aren't discussions; they're wars of attrition. I'm also concerned with comments like here (you yourself don't pass the arbitrary threshold for which you opposed User:Number 57). I'm deeply sorry, because VanTucky does so much good for the project, but in sum, I see a pattern of uneven temperament and unyielding, unapologetic behavior which raises a red flag for me. --JayHenry 04:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Some of the things highlighted by those preceding me are disturbing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Too many concerns here, plus this one where he tells someone "It's pretty fucking simple". I find that dismissive and demeaning to the other editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out (since this is a new thing found), that this incident was in July. I absolutely agree it's a valid point, (and the irony that it was about our own Legal Counsel is not lost on me) but I'm hopeful VanTucky has gotten enough feedback about his need to be less abrupt and dismissive that we will see far fewer dismissive comments in future. He has undertaken several times to take the feedback away and think about it. And VanTucky, if this fails please do not get discouraged, instead continue working at what you are good at, and build up a contribution history that shows that you've taken heed of the counsel given you during this. Not everyone passes on their first try. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Serious concerns exist regarding temperament, per Alison and R1evse. It's very poor form to curse at Wikimedia's general counsel. Xoloz 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Oppose With more and more evidence of incivility surfacing, I unfortunatly feel that I must go from a weak oppose to a flat-out oppose. TheIslander 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) - Good editor, some quality edits. Good admin material, in my opinion, with the large exception of his temperament. I'm sorry, but the issues brought up above are just a little too great for me to be able to support. Sorry. TheIslander 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per all of the civility and temperment issues cited above. -Chunky Rice 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose very reluctantly because I think the general quality of the work is excellent. But I do not have confidence in the manner. We need a gentle tone in dealing with human beings, and people van be really upset with what may appear to be insensitive comments, especially from an admin. I would certainly hope to be able to support in the future. DGG (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Reluctantly but firmly. To many incivility issues and the diff from User:Rlevse that I missed is exactly what I do not want to see in an admin. Pedro :  Chat  19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, After the reviewing the issues above, the response to Annalisa Ventola and the Godwin diffs provided by Rlevse, I'm sorry, but I must change to oppose at this time. Dreadstar † 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, changing to oppose per info in several postings in this section. Sumoeagle179 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Concerned about this user's temperament. TigerShark 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Good editor, but lacks the temperament to wield a mop. Far too much evidence of incivility above. One Night In Hackney303 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per the temperament issues raised above and I'm not happy with the issues with Alison and the deleted post linked by Daniel. Sarah 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose This is a good editor but the civility problem is the major reason I can't support. Editors can't help getting angry from time to time but we are expected to work our differences out in a civil manner. I think this editor is not quite ready for admin tools just yet.--Sandahl 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Giano, Alison, et cetera.. I am very concerned with matters raised above, particularly his response to Annalisa and his dealings with Alison. DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Opppose regretfully. I've not had a lot of contact with VanTucky, but I have run into him a couple times, and I personally had no real problems with him, nor did I ever see any issues during the limited times I've seen his name. However, I also didn't look. And as I always do, when offering opinions on RfAs, I do look into the candidate's past contributions, and history. Some things concern me, others just give me a bad taste. One thing that bothers me, as others have mentioned, is the apparent need to counter every negative comment with a response, this indicates someone who tends to like having the last word, and that's a concerning trait in an administrator. As others have said, this editor appears to "dig his heels in" and not give up, whether he is wrong or not. Being an administrator often requires one to respond diplomatically, not insist you're right, and let matters drop at times. User talk:Alison/VanTucky is concerning, and his response to Riana expressing concern over the remark was less than what I'd expect from an administrator. The diff provided by Rlevse, where VanTucky curses at others during the Mike Godwin discussion is just as concerning. I realize Wikipedia is not censored, but I think that language like that is really not necessary when discussing article issues, and ways to improve them. VanTucky was blocked during this Mike Godwin issue, for 3RR violations after reverting five times, despite many others explaining on the article's talk page why the tags he was adding were not appropriate. Upon requesting an unblock review, it was declined, and the blocking admin gave him a very civil note about the block, to which he accused the admin of "threatening" him. Now yes, I realize this was in July, but that is something to consider in an administrative candidate four months later. As evident from the discussion that then ensued, VanTucky has a problem letting go, and again makes me wonder if he has "Last word" tendencies. To continue, I'm also concerned about this CSD tagging, he tagged this page with ((db-bio)), and Deb realized it was a mispaced userpage, so she moved it to the user's userpage, and removed the CSD tag. VanTucky then replaced the tag. Two issues bother me with this. First, any editor other than the creator of the page may remove a CSD tag at any time, if they consider it inappropriate. Second, when he reverted Deb, it was in userspace, and not a violation of policy. Yes, again this was in July, but it is still something that concerns me somewhat. This recent page creation would indicate a lack of proper searching for the subject prior to creation. A simple search for "Richard Curtis" in the search box (using "search" not "go") would have shown the politician was the fourth result. This report recently to the WP:3RRN, was improperly done, as shown by the note from the admin who evaluated it that page revisions aren't acceptable, diffs showing previous version must be placed. While I understand the applicant's reason of "Sorry, it was pretty late", it does bother me a little bit. I realize that the response to Annalisa has been brought up before, but this too, is concerning to me, and I'll explain my own personal reasons: To say that another editor's comments "sicken you", and to call their comments "absurd", really rubs me the wrong way. I think that there could have been a much nicer way to address the issues Annalisa brought up, without using such words. Futher, these kinds of edit summaries from a couple weeks ago, are really not helpful. I honestly thought upon seeing VanTucky was a candidate, that I'd support, but going through recent, and semi-recent items, there are just too many concerns at this point for me to support. I would really encourage VanTucky to learn how to accept it when others think he's wrong, even if he feels he's not, and just let things drop. It is not often that I offer an oppose opinion on an editor I have respect for, and I do indeed, respect VanTucky, his GA work, and other work is commendable. Unfortunately, at this time, I am not comfortable supporting this administrative request. Ariel♥Gold 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I realize that the candidate did mention the block and 3RR violation in question 3, but I am simply illustrating that they contribute to my combined concerns. Ariel♥Gold 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose[2]. Chick Bowen 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, the above is too curt to be polite--sorry about that. Though it is clear that this candidate is improving, things like the diff I linked above are still too recent for this nomination, I feel. Shepherding processes is probably the most important--often the only--aspect of adminship. Reasonable people get frustrated by them, and a good admin understands that and responds accordingly. Chick Bowen 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. No user should be making comments like the ones Daniel and Alison have highlighted, let alone an administrator. --krimpet⟲ 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Going to have to be, after seeing diffs such as this one. It makes me feel VanTucky shouts at editors for simply making a mistake. Also seems somewhat unfriendly, shows by this and this. I know there is no rule against swearing, but it can turn a whole discussion on it's head, and turn all the editors mad. I am yet to see an admin cursing to get his point across, and I think there's a good reason for this. I feel these 3 diffs are enough. -- Jack 08:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. A good contributor. But needs to work on the various issues raised above before becoming an admin. Zaxem 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - as per User:Rlevse, and concerns raise by Alison, et al. ScarianTalk 10:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose To be an experienced while vantucky clearly seems, committed, and widely respected editor, an inappropriate candidate for adminship, I think he is. Show consistent civility and grace under pressure, an admin must, to users even while making policy mistakes known must give encouragement, with users working on topics the admin finds fluffy must engage respectfully, and the patience to carefully read and respond to any debate in, must have which the admin involves her/himself. With vantucky in my experience, these things, he failed to do. Yeesssssss. Nawrbert 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be brand new user - with no edits to his name. Giano 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bizarre Yoda-like rewording of the opening of my oppose. What the heck? --Melty girl 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I noticed that. In-denting so as to dis-count. If the user/sock meant something beyond a joke/troll, which I doubt, they can return and put it back. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  37. Oppose. Too many civility concerns raised above, some of them recent. --Fang Aili talk 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, due to concerns about civility as mentioned by many others. From what I have seen of VanTucky's contributions, he's thoughtful and has much to offer Wikipedia, but he should try to be more moderated in his behaviour. I don't believe people are opposing because they seek civility for civility's sake, but rather because intemperate comments tend to make a situation worse rather than better. If VanTucky addresses these concerns, perhaps I (and others) might support him in a future RfA. --Kyoko 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - The opposers are convincing in their concerns about VanTucky's attitude and approach to disputes. Incivility is damaging to the encyclopedia and indicates a personality unsuited for the supposedly quotidian but often contentious role of an administrator. AvruchTalk 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per the many concerns about civility, particularly as cited by Alison and Rlevse. Civility, IMHO, is an absolute must-have for an admin.  Folic_Acid | talk  16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Reluctant Oppose wish I could support you, in fact, I started out supporting you, but the evidence presented here is too compelling. Changed vote to oppose. One should never dismiss others with the word "fucking simple" or other cases where you've lost your temper and used that word.Balloonman 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, primarily per Giano and DarkFalls. The Godwin incident is also quite worrying. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral (switched to oppose) (switched back to neutral, below) per this comment (administrators: click "show changes", and also note comment above it). Totally unacceptable, but because it's only one incident, I can't oppose. I can't support because it was only three weeksmonths ago, though. Daniel 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to listen to any concerns you might have Daniel, but I can't participate if you link to a diff that I can't even see. I don't think that's particularly fair. VanTucky Talk 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's when you expressed your reservations in a forthright manner about User:Alison refusing to semi-protect an RfA. Tim Vickers 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember it, I rudely objected to Alison's decision on the matter. But then I apologized. VanTucky Talk 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is the case. The problem for me was how recent it was, but I don't feel in evil enough a mood to oppose :) Daniel 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to User talk:Alison/VanTucky in the interests of fairness and transparency - Alison ❤ 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, don't you mean three months ago? August isn't three weeks ago. :) Acalamari 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant three months - fixed :) Still, the comment was so way out-of-line and unneeded and relatively recent (it felt like three weeks ago!) that I can't support. Daniel 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To me there is a vast difference between 'a forthright manner' and telling someone that someone else "had the guts to do what you did not". I'm unwilling to oppose given my respect for the nominator and the fact that this RFA will probably pass, but I'd like to advise Steven to try to keep the edge off his 'forthrightness'. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice duly taken. You're absolutely right. VanTucky Talk 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really, really hate to do this Steven, but having been told what that diff contain...aaah...I'm sorry pal. This shouldn't and won't bring you down, but please never do that again. Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (to support)[reply]
    I really don't understand. No one is perfect. One poor comment three months ago for which I already apologized (and have obviously recognized to be unacceptable) means that I'm not worth supporting? If the object is to prevent admins that consistently demonstrate uncivil behavior, and I do not, what is the point here? I mean, I respect you !voting your conscience here Di, but this feels like undue sensitivity. VanTucky Talk 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. You'd especially think someone that knows this editor well enough to call him by the first name, and use the word "pal" would be able to extend the benefit of the doubt. K. Scott Bailey 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get personal. DM is a pal, and we should stick to judging my conduct, not his. VanTucky Talk 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if it felt that way. It was not intended that way. All I was trying to say is that your behavior afterwards would seem to buy you the benefit of the doubt, but especially from a friend. I apologize for any offense I caused. K. Scott Bailey 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not going to oppose based on one or two incidents, but I would seriously advise rereading Talk:SS Christopher Columbus#Failed "good article" nomination and considering how you could have defused the situation. I'm not trying to kick a dead dog here, but as an admin your decisions will be questioned—and you should be prepared to fully explain yourself without resentment. Maralia 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And back to neutral again. Daniel 12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above comments. Not enough for me to oppose, but am not 100% confident adminship is a good idea at this time. - Shudde talk 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm a little concerned with your attitude - although I think it's just a temporary thing and that you are quickly acclimating to the project. Can you tell me which person on your talk page has been with the project about five years, created over 2,000 articles and treated you with the utmost courtesy, respect and even deference? Do you think you've reciprocated? (this version of your talk page). --Duk 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least four or five long-standing contributors who made comments to me on that version of my talk. Though, considering of this RFA's history, my best guess would be that you're referring to Alison. Of course, the best way for me to try and speak on a particular situation is for you to tell me which one concerns you. VanTucky Talk 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimfbleak --Duk 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was perfectly civil to him. I pointed out his mistake, and I also praised him on multiple counts and encouraged him to continue taking a wack at reviewing after he expressed regrets. I'm not sure if you're familiar with GA, but passing an article you've contributed to - and that another reviewer held - is the equivalent of closing an AFD that you nominated. VanTucky Talk 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also confused by this one, Duk. It looks like a basic procedural issue, that was handled to the satisfaction of all parties. Do you think otherwise? If so, please state your case – it may not be as clear as you think. -Pete 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, my concern is with the attitude, not the procedure. --Duk 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's your perogative. I'm not going to argue over it, but I think I had a perfectly congenial attitude in that situation. VanTucky Talk 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Concerns with abrasiveness and contentiousness. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral The issues brought up may have been back in July, but they are of serious concern. Your civility seems to be slightly questionable at times. I'm still unsure, so I'll stay neutral. Icestorm815 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. For better or for worse, VanTucky has been here long enough to know that when you're going through RFA, you stay on your best behavior. If that means shutting your mouth and not snapping at voters for one week, then that's what you do. He has nobody to blame but himself here. No need to reply to me, I won't be back to argue with you. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category