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

VanTucky[edit]

Final (194/9/4); ended 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
VanTucky (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) - VanTucky, an editor active since August 2006

Co-nomination from TimVickers

VanTucky has been contributing since August 2006, and is a prolific editor: with his contributions ranging the Signpost, a great deal of GA and FA reviewing, and most recently, bringing the article Domestic sheep through the FA process. With this level of both article writing and reviewing, VanTucky is well-versed in how our content policies operate in practice and has learned how to work well with other editors. These impressive editing achievements are balanced by experience in the Wikipedia namespace, as he regularly takes part in AfD discussions (with his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film being a particularly impressive example of a reasoned and calm discussion of our deletion policies), reports unacceptable usernames and vandals, as well as participating in the RfC process and discussions on the Admin noticeboard. Importantly, VanTucky often deals with subjects some editors have strong feelings about, such as homosexuality and racism, which gives him a great deal of experience in dealing firmly but politely with editors with deeply-held opinions, how to counter POV pushing and talk page trolling and how to carefully apply our NPOV policy in difficult cases. This level and breadth of experience, coupled with his calm and constructive attitude, means that VanTucky will be an excellent admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Acalamari

It is a great honor that I have been given the chance to co-nominate VanTucky for adminship. Why is VanTucky an ideal candidate? Well, to start with, VanTucky is an excellent article-writer: he has helped improve countless articles, including topics such as Tai chi chuan and Vancouver, Washington, and has done a lot of work with the featured article, good article, and did you know processes. He is also good with vandal-fighting, knowing when to use and not to use the rollback feature.

VanTucky was previously nominated for adminship by TimVickers and Wikidudeman in November 2007, but was unsuccessful due to some civility concerns at the time. Since then, however, he has worked on issues raised there, and in my opinion, has become one of the friendliest users I know: I think he has addressed past concerns. In fact, I even coached VanTucky (which can be found at User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/VanTucky), and he demonstrated good knowledge of policy and improvement on the coaching page. I was (and still am) impressed.

I think that VanTucky will make an excellent administrator. I am pleased to be able to co-nominate him. Acalamari 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from AGK

It is my pleasure to nominate VanTucky for adminship. VT is an honest, hard-working editor who balances impressive article contributions, with thoughtful and reflective meta discussions. He's often seen around areas that are somewhat controversial, and has never been afraid to speak his mind. Although that's gained him a few more enemies than the average, "keep your head down" rfa candidate, it has also allowed him to acquire and refine exactly the sort of abilities we require in a project administrator: an editor who is not afraid to speak his mind, take action to protect the project, and point out problems, no matter how far it shifts those on the receiving end from their comfort zones.

At VT's last rfa, there were a few concerns about civility. I very much believe that those concerns are now no longer a problem. VanTucky manages to keep an even keel in the hottest of disputes, and I think that speaks bucketloads for how he'll cope under the pressure administrators have to endure. VT has shown himself to be very dedicated, and firmly in support of Wikipedia's principles and policies. VanTucky's robust show at his administrator coaching is simply the icing on the cake for me; having had a brief flick through there, I can see we'll have a very competent administrator in our ranks. I firmly believe VT will benefit the project through his being granted the administrator tools, and I do hope the editors offering input concur. Anthøny 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: VanTucky 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my first RFA do to some valid objections over my behavior towards others. Some of the named incidents were months old at the time of my candidacy, others were very recent. Tellingly, the poor way I dealt with comments in the RFA itself was a factor in its failure. Since that time, I feel I have plainly taken the constructive criticism provided to heart. I also received some valuable admin coaching from Acalamari, which I encourage everyone to read. With the positive changes to my on-site interactions and some helpful advice from some fantastic admins, I feel confident that I am ready to take up the mop for Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to read this statement, the questions, and for adding your voice to the consensus. VanTucky 18:56, 16 April 2008 (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: I am primarily an editor of the mainspace and projectspace areas related to article improvement and assessment. Speaking plainly, I work on articles and in GA (as a reviewer and project member) and sporadically in FA (at my last RFA, it was suggested I try participating more in FA, and I've enjoyed doing so). I am hardly ever around XFD anymore, except when I spy an article in my usual work, but I do have experience with it. I occasionally do some welcoming (it can make a good break from writing, it's my form of RC patrol) and I enjoy helping new editors learn the ropes. Vandalfight is something that comes as second-nature to me, but I really only do it through my watchlist these days. I am familiar with AIV, UFAA, and RFPP, but I only see myself potentially helping out at the last one with any regularity. To be perfectly honest, I must say that the "big" admin powers of deleting, blocking and protecting are tasks I expect to be doing sparingly. I am willing to help just about wherever I'm asked, but mainspace and GA are my central focus. As a side note, I've been a sysop on a non-Wikimedia MediaWiki site since December, so I'm functionally familiar with carrying out administrative tasks of most kinds.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My userpage has a list of all the article work I've collaborated on, which includes several FAs (Guinea pig, Parapsychology), GAs (Vinkensport, Herdwick, Squab) and DYKs. In addition to those articles I have previously assisted get to FA or GA that I mentioned in my first RFA, I have done some respectable work since then. I did a complete rewrite of Domestic sheep and it's now FA-class. I additionally authored a couple dozen smaller articles you can see listed on my userpage, bringing a few to GA and making some DYKs out of them. My second largest area of contributions are as a regular GA reviewer, you can also see a list of my reviews on my userpage. I've recently begun to comment more on FACs and help out with them.
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: Conflicts of some sort are practically inevitable on Wikipedia. We strive to avoid them as best as possible, but they do occur. How I handle conflicts was the central concern of my first RFA, and I feel I have significantly improved in the way I handle them since. As I said back in November, my only block was in July 07 for 3RR violation on Mike Godwin. I haven't had a problem with understanding and obeying 3RR since then. How I've improved my conflict resolution is due to several important factors: first, I've developed a stronger ability to pick my battles. Several participants in my first RFA called me "intractable", which was not inaccurate. These days, I just as often simply prefer to not draw out arguments needlessly. I may also have lessened the amount of conflicts I get in to at all, perhaps because of the change in my topics of interest (parapsychology is infinitely more contentious a subject than sheep). However, GA can still be a harrowing place from time to time. Whatever the subject, the ability to diffuse conflict before it gets out of hand is important. I've been better at keeping a cooler head, and making sure that disagreement over content is not a personal matter. Those arguments over content that I have encountered lately have largely ended amicably on both sides.

Optional Questions from Legoktm

4 What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Bans are formal rescinding of your editing privileges on Wikipedia, and can be enacted by the community, Jimbo, the Foundation, and ArbCom (or someone they designate to do so for them). A block is a technical feature used by admins to prevent editing.
5 When should you use a cool-down block?
A: Never.
6 When should you give an IP an indef block?
A: Rarely, if at all.

Optional question from Gwynand

7 What is your understanding of IAR, specifically on how it applies to admin actions?
A: In my experience standing policy has a contingency for the majority of situations that arise, and editors should first look to them when encountering a problem. 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. In plain English: IAR isn't an excuse to do as you please. Example in admin actions: 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.


Optional questions from Thehelpfulone

8. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
A: I support the spirit of that endeavor, but I'm unsure of (the current form) of its practical application. I would definitely consider adding myself to the category, but I am currently on the fence abot reconfirmation RFAs. I think that only in the most extraordinary of circumstances would I put myself up for one, as many in the community find them to be wasteful or have a detrimental effect on the RFA process.
9. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
A: To be honest I have not thought about this a lot. In principle, this issue behind granting rollback is the same as RFA, it all comes down to degrees of trust. Despite the fact that I am a rollbacker currently, I have no personal opinion on what the exact standards should be.

Optional question from Wizardman

10. I'm not a question asker and find it annoying to be part of the inevitable pile-on, but I'm on the fence on you and do wish to ask this one question. Let's say a middle school is up for AfD. There is no district to merge it to. How would you close such a debate?
A: I would close the debate according to consensus of the discussion at hand. I understand your concern, because if you look at some of my old AFD contribs you might think I was pretty deletionist, especially when it comes to schools. I know debate still continues over school notability, but my personal attitude has definitely softened. My bottom line is this: the job of admins in closing AFDs is to disregard their own feelings about whether or not a particular article (or class of articles) should be deleted.

Question from ArcAngel

11. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A. I would not personally block someone, IP or user, who vandalized my userpage. It's not hard at all to make reversions, and request other actions. Vandalism against userpages can get personal in nature, and I would not want a block to appear to be punitive.

Question from Pedro

12. The bottom part of the contents of User:VanTucky/Sandbox, created a few weeks ago are, well, interesting. Do you see a succesful outcome of this RFA as a foregone conclusion? Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.' Of course not. I am firm in my conviction that I've improved my ability to stay civil, but editors could very well bring up objections that never entered my mind. I wrote it because I wanted to formulate what I wanted to say in advance (I wouldn't need to do that for a failed RFA, that's already happened once). You'll notice that I didn't write in the pass or fail result next to vote tally. I did the same thing at my first RFA, and naturally I ended up changing it.

Questions from LessHeard vanU

13. I note from your count that you have a certain number of edit summaries left blank in each month. Do you consider that there may be times when a sysop does not need to make a summary, even an automated one, and that communication is not always a requirement when acting in the admin function?
A. Repeating a theme from my admin coaching, I'm of the notion that increased communication should be a priority all admins, but especially new ones. The reason I have blank summaries still is that I'm still training myself to use them. There are times when it feels redudant to use them (repeated talk page discussions in a single thread), but they are important. When acting in the admin function in particular, there aren't any specific examples I can think where even an automated summary would be unnecessary. I may find differently if I am granted the tools, but for now I want to focus on increasing my communication, not finding reasons to trim it down.
In which case, I would advise you that you have an option in your preferences to force you to add a summary. You may wish to turn it on.
14. As someone with very strong opinions regarding sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. I have nevertheless have some reservations about the "rights" that some - for want of a better phrase (and if anyone can think of one, please substitute it) - non stereotypical members of society believe they have in respect of editing certain articles; that being a member of a section of society that has and or has been the subject of victimisation is of itself noteworthy, outside of the notability of the subject. How do you handle instances such as this?
A. I don't quite grasp your question I think, but here goes. The simple answer is: everyone, unless they are in violation of our policies and guidelines, is welcome to edit on a subject. But no one is specially entitled to edit on a subject. Being personally related to a subject or holding a title or certification does not give you special rights, for the reason that Wikipedia draws its accuracy from reliable published source material instead of personal expertise or experience. Speaking in generalizations, I would handle this by A: expressing empathy for the person's situation; it's easy to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. B: gently reminding them that our goal is neutral encyclopedic information as verified by published source material, not as an arbiter of the truth or moral rightness.
Brilliant. You have my support.

Optional question from DarkAudit

15. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
A: I didn't catch your question until just now, and I'm not familiar with the subject. I'll read it in depth and provide an answer.

Optional question from Balloonman

16. In the opposes below, there is a pretty damning dif. It's the one wherein you changed the MOS to reflect a position that you were taking in opposition to another user. You changed the MOS and less than 5 minutes later, it was reverted back to the original wording by a third party. Can you explain your actions? On what basis did you believe you were acting appropriately? I tried to find discussion on this subject, wherein consensus might have been reached, but couldn't.
A: On the basis of one of our oldest and most respected guidelines: be bold in updating pages. I was wrong in my citing of MOS in the dispute with Hespersian. But I do think that pointing out in MOS#Images that most articles have forced thumb size in their lead image for aesthetic reasons is a good idea, regardless of my interaction with Hespersian. I honestly thought the whole idea was uncontroversial. I've never actually seen an editor reduce the size of taxobox images to the standard thumb size. I thought the guideline already supported my notion, it didn't. But I think it should. Thus, I wanted to change it. It's as simple as that. I didn't change MOS until, at least to me, the discussion with Hespersian was over and done. It wasn't some sneaky attempt to win an argument (how sneaky can it be if I used a clear edit summary and it's right there in the history? Wiki is very transparent, for good reason). Once that third party reverted me because they disagreed, I brought it up on the talk page and left it at that.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nom beating ;), but Yes. Sceptre (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Beat the co-nom. :) Excellent editor. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support great user, has experience in all places, will make a great admin. Always civil.--Phoenix-wiki 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, per rationale in my nomination statement. Anthøny 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Has improved a lot since the past RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support VanTucky is a valuable editor, and will be even more valuable with the admin tools. — Scientizzle 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Knows what they're doing, certainly. Haven't seen this user screw up, which is also a good sign. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Happy to support since abuse of the tools seems very unlikely. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - credit to wikipedia! TheProf - T / C 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Excellent candidate, excellent nominations, excellent answers. Overall, excellent. Rudget 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Nice article work, great editor, good project space contributions, well thought out arguments at WP:AFD. I recommend using your edit summaries abit more, but that's a minor skin irritation. Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A quite familiar username, I've seen VanTucky all over the place. Given the multiple civility concerns raised on his last RfA, I've checked his recent history in order to spot any uncivil behavior. Couldn't find any and I congratulate VanTucky for that. Guess you're cleared. Húsönd 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support Excellent example of how to overcome a difficult (and rightfully unsuccessful) RFA#1. Seen you around, you do great work, (your GA reviews are excellent for example), and you truly are here (both on wiki and in RfA) for the right reasons. Support without hesitation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I could have sworn I saw your last nom pass, but apparently not. bibliomaniac15 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Conditional STRONG Support I started out supporting him last time he ran, but was eventually persuaded to change my stance because of some civility concerns. He had a propensity to drop the f-bomb when dealing with people. I've gone through and looked at quite a few of his edits since his last RfA and can't find any similar situations. In fact, I've seen a number of edits where I felt like he was restraining himself. Am giving him my support for now, but may reconsider if somebody shows a pattern of continued incivility since his last RfA.Balloonman (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody seems to be able to point to any new problems, changing to what I really wanted to do... strong support!Balloonman (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Liked the answer to Q10, like the general contributions. Wizardman 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I have worked closely with VanTucky both on- and off-wiki. He is dedicated to the success of the project, and has extensive experience in various areas. Where concerns have been raised about his behavior, he has been responsive. A side note people may not be aware of, VanTucky has been an effective ambassador for promoting Wikipedia in the local academic community; see here and also here. -Pete (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Partly per the honest reposonse to my question. I weakly supported your last RFA, then switching to oppose as I had failed to be thorough enough in my review of your work, and the civility concerns identified troubled me deeply. I'd like you to look at your edit summaries more - sometimes you leave none and other times you appear to leave more info in the summary than in the contribution. But it's minor. There is no question in my mind that you have learnt from your failed RFA, and this is demonstrated by your work subsequently. I strongly believe that this learning curve will continue, and you will not relapse to past ways - you seem to be more "content and happy" in your editing recently (I am hoping you undestrand my meaning in this respect - you seem "calmer"). Your policy knowledge and abilities were never in doubt, in my mind, so with your refreshed approach to working with others I'm convinced that you having admin buttons will be a net positive to Wikipedia. Good luck, and, as ever, my best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - The answer to Q10 especially blew me away. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I love the answer to Q10. Very nice. Definitely can trust this user with the tools. Razorflame 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Generally excellent editor. Eusebeus (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. No concerns. His answers at User:Acalamari/Admin_coaching/VanTucky seem to be even more cautious than necessary, and they do suggest good knowledge of policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I've seen nothing but good things from this contributor. Always civil, always polite and always dedicated. He is a brilliant contributor to our encyclopaedia who just won't stop giving! He bakes good cookies too! Yum! ScarianCall me Pat! 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes, of course. (By the way, I nicked your userpage. You are credited mind.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I think I supported him in the past, and I think I was right then. I understand others have had concerns, and I don't minimize them, but I think he's done enough to have even those concerns addressed. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I trust this user. Seen his work on the project and no problems with his edits. 42 was a good answer to Q5A (it had me stumped) and answer to Q10 confirmed my trust.--Sting au Buzz Me... 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Long-term contributor with substantial commitment to building the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Of course. An excellent content contributor who has diverse experience. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Indeed. Dlohcierekim 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Of course. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I am 100% positive that this editor will make a fantastic administrator, so I fully support this nomination. Valtoras (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per "Brilliant!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) - After reading through various recent opposes and neutral, and weighing up of overall impression against this incident; confirm Support LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - should have passed last time. Also good answers to my questions. :P Majorly (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Epbr123 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support. I usually don't declare strong support for a candidate, but VanTucky is exceptional. He's hard working, trustworthy and knows his way around. He'll make a great admin. Majoreditor (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Seen him around, looks like a good guy. MBisanz talk 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Same as in the last nom, all I have seen of this user has been very constructive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Comfortable with the judgement that this editor shows. EJF (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support again. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support As per Acalamari.I feel the questions raised in the earlier appear to totally overcame after this admin coaching and user has reacted positively and has been constructive and the contributions have improved since the last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Would like to see better edit summary usage, LegoKontribsTalkM 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Just like last time. Jmlk17 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. EC Support - I'm not all that concerned about the edit summary usage, VanTucky will be of great benefit to the project as a sysop. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Edit summary usage is disappointing, but everything else checks out. VanTucky is a very experienced editor who would do a good job as an admin. Useight (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Great answers and a great contributor. Polly (Parrot) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I was a de facto neutral in VanTucky's last Rfa (which I didn't participate in) because although he does great quality work, I had some reservations about his civility, having seen him come across as brusque and dismissive in a couple GA reviews and talk pages, qualities that aren't good in any editor, but especially in an admin. Unlike many 2nd (3rd, 4th...) Rfa's I've seen, however, VanTucky seems to have truly taken the suggestions of the community to heart. VanTucky is very dedicated to the project and I think he'll make a great admin, and I'm sure if he has any bad days, he'll now know to take a step back before saying something he might regret later. He also really knows his way around the wiki and can actually contribute content, grammar and form and style edits to articles, something more admins should know how to do, IMO. Katr67 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I need to see how VT handles the rest of this Rfa first, though it's ending soon and I'm sure it will pass. Katr67 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I've had only good experiences with VanTucky. Good luck! iMatthew 2008 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - User seems to know their way around Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I thought you were an admin already. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support <insert cliche—yeah, you know which one—here> · AndonicO Engage. 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Absolutely, and about time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support because... (already said) and because... (also said) and becu(also said) hmmm... ah I know because.... (dang it) well, because he's a good editor that's why. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Appears to be qualified. Also seems to have a good sense of humor. --SharkfaceT/C 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Looks good, and answers to questions are very impressive. GlassCobra 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support. Really regret my opinion the last time around. I think VT is a great Wikipedian, great article work, very helpful, some of the best answers to questions I've seen (particulary 7, 10 and 17). No reservations. --JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I have seen this user on WP:GAN, and I think that he will be a good administrator. Macy (Review me!) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. This has to be my latest support ever for a nominee/co-nominee of mine! :) A strong support from me! Acalamari 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. This is one of the tougher RfA decisions this year, simply because VanTucky's last RfA was so darn dramatic. He has, at times, been harsh, has called a spade a spade, has called a troll a troll, and has been called incivil. Perhaps he is. So the question the community must ask itself is "will we tolerate an incivil administrator?" I could rant about how we already have plenty (we do) or about how incivility isn't an issue (it is)...but I won't. What I will say is that VanTucky is "incivil", though his occasional bluntness, to those that can take a hit, or at least, should be able to. He is civil, respectful, and helpful, to new users, and indeed, to anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia. VanTucky is here to build an encyclopedia, and the admin tools will make that easier for him. That's what we should be doing—sysopping people who will use the tools to better the encyclopedia, not to better their rank, or to eliminate those they don't like, or whatever. VanTucky is an encyclopedia builder, and will do this work better as an admin. I trust him. But...Steven...you promised I could nominate you...:( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) You can tell I'm writing this after looking at the Giano ANI subpage, can't you?[reply]
    Not directly related to anything, but I will go on the record that VanTucky is, if not the best, then definitely one of the 3 best GA reviewers I've worked with in my time here. The other two in the top three are admins. He's a heck of a lot better than me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: Great 'pedia builder which more than makes up for other issues. Big net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - solely because you like phở.</sarcasm> Will be a fine administrator. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --jonny-mt 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I could tell you that I waited so long to !vote because your last RfA confused me. I could also say it was because of your history of un-civility. I could also say that it was because of the Oppose !vote down there bringing up some good points. But to tell the truth, I just wanted to be Support #69. Ha ha ha.--KojiDude (Contributions) 04:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. It's hard to oppose a nomination such as this :) Anyway, great, well-rounded user; we could use more admins like him. Singularity 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - I was surprised he is not already an admin. A credit to the project. --David Shankbone 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support Excellent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Excellent editor. --CapitalR (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, again and strongly so. Dorftrottel (criticise) 06:03, April 17, 2008
  74. Support - Had some civility issues in the past, but has grown from those and does good work at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Has addressed previous concerns, good answers to questions, should be a good admin. Davewild (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support coolios!! Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support --Hdt83 Chat 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support - User is likely to oppose the bias at Wikipedia against anonymous IP editors, and likely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. Furthermore, the user's record and overall views impress me. Excellent admin candidate. Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - This guy is really helpful through IRC for me, and has basically governed WP:GAC helping to bring the backlog down. Will make a really good admin. Sunderland06 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - really good editor who will use the tools wisely. Civility has obviously been an issue but I think VanTucky has genuinely worked on this since the last RFA.--BelovedFreak 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Per nom statements by TimVickers (talk · contribs), Acalamari (talk · contribs), and AGK (talk · contribs). VanTucky (talk · contribs) is a valued contributor and has been for quite some time now, an excellent GA Reviewer, and will do well to have the tools. Cirt (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support An excellent editor who will make good use of the mop. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, GA's FA's no blocks? Seems to meet all my criteria! --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. WilyD 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Rarely do I feel it's worthwhile to pile on, but in this case, yes.[reply]
  85. Support Wonderful work on articles such as Domestic sheep, and my experiences with him have always been positive. I believe he's well-suited to be an admin, both in skills and temperament. Willow (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Good editor who won't abuse the tools and may contribute even more to Wikipedia with the tools. --Abrech (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --Duk 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Yes! - I have been waiting for this! While the issues raised in VanTucky's previous RfA really concerned me then, those concerns are no more. I feel that this user has shown great improvement and a willingness to improve upon their mistakes. I actually have found myself going to VanTucky's userpage to search for anything that indicated he was already a admin, and always to my surprise came up empty handed, well after this that will no longer be the case. Net positive all together and will be a great asset to the team. Tiptoety talk 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Great candidate. support like last time ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support the mature responses persuaded me. Pundit|utter 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Most definitely. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support involvement in PAW-related articles is proof of VanTucky's insanity but he'll do fine as an admin. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support It's overdue. SWik78 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support absolutely. A great editor, cool under fire - I can't see him abusing the tools. Net benefit to the project. (Answers to Q5A and 19 are pretty good, too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Strong support. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Good work at GA. Thoughtful answer to Q7, which I recommend people read. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Good editor, and more civil than he used to be (and I'm probably not the ideal person to be lecturing anyone about civility, in any case). His experience, of course, is more than adequate. WaltonOne 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - per questions! Good Editor! Good Luck! The Helpful One (Review) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. miranda 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Very strong support How could I oppose? Quite frankly. CycloneNimrodtalk? 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Just like last time. And solid answers to those extremely important optional questions :D (which have correctly been removed). Spellcast (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Given the razor thin margin between support and oppose, I really felt it my duty to weigh in on your behalf to ensure your success. Additionally, I supported you the first time, and I see no reason not to this time through. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Learning from experience is one of the most important characteristics that sysop's need to have, and an example of good judgment. -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - An excellent candidate deserves pile-on support! -MBK004 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Of course. VanTucky is a great candidate. hmwithτ 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, as I did last time. Skinwalker (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support:: I believe this editor is worthy of our trust. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. All I can say is, if VanTucky is suspected of civility issues, then I'm in deep, deep trouble :) He's one of the nicest reviewers I've met. - Dan (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support the user is a competent long-time wikipedian. See no reason why he should not be given administrator privileges.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. $upport Solid editor. Dfrg_msc 01:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. I know this looks like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but this guy's legit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support per Hiberniantears. Keegantalk 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Looks good! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support I don't usually even look at RFAs, let alone participate (except my own of course). There can be no doubt VanTucky is qualified for adminship: he excels in technical and communication skills, temperament, and attitude. —EncMstr (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support I have admired VanTucky's work on Portland-related articles at WP:ORE, one of the most collaborative and well-run WikiProjects around.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, he is not a kitten beater! John Vandenberg (chat) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Some RfAs are easy to support, and this is one of them. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. — Becksguy (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. For every reason stated above, plus one. Spinach Dip 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support well rounded. Very good candidate. SpencerT♦C 10:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - will make a fine admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - just to pile on. Absolutely no valid reason to think user will abuse tools. Tan | 39 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I would have voted oppose if you had said colour. --Endless Dan 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - No reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Weak Support - No reason to oppose. Jaymacdonald (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support – Contribs look good, nothing of concern. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strong Support Well qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong Support - absolutely. Previous concerns have all been addressed and are well in the past. Give this guy a mop! :) - Alison ❤ 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - preschooler@heart 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Guinea Pig - the_undertow talk 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support VanTucky 2 seems to be trustworthy and reliable. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support You are a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Because I want there to be no doubt why I voted in support. 1. Individual has a good number of edits with a mix of wikispace, talk and mainspace. 2. Individual received 1 block 5 July 2007, no obvious history of vandalism and no recent warnings 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 8 August 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in wikiprojects 5. This is the 2nd time the user has submitted RFA. 6. Individual has been a reviewer on numorous good and/or featured articles 7. Individual has received several awards or recognitions including The Good Article Medal of Merit for their work on wikipedia. 8. Has been coached by Acalamari, Co-nominated by Sysyop's User:AGK, User:TimVickers, User:Acalamari -->--Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Sorry I'm late Support - VanTucky's first request gave him a fair bit of feedback to think about and address and I think he's done just that. The wide margin here suggests I'm not the only person who thinks so. I think he will make a fine administrator. Just watch out for Namespace Shift!!!! Your help on GA and FA will remain invaluable... ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support I think this is gonna pass...Modernist (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Has addressed earlier concerns. SilkTork *YES! 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Strong support. Great candidate. Johnfos (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Horologium (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. Haven't had any contact since last time, but if there are so few in opposition, and so many for, I think that says a lot. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support a frequent and knowledgeable reviewer of articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. A reliable editor of good judgment, from what I've seen.--ragesoss (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support I know it's a cliche but I thought... -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Strong Support Will surely use the tools well, contributions are excellent. --Ryan  talk  02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice signature Ryan .. :) Pedro :  Chat  12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe :-) Ryan  talk  01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support per above. Beagel (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support A very thorough, thoughtful editor. Gosgood (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Any friend of Dolly is a friend of mine. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support A good candidate for the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - seen VanTucky all over the place. He'll be a great admin! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - He is a great editor and deserves the admin tools - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support - CenariumTalk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. Good answers to questions, participation in FA process, WP:100. ~AH1(TCU) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. I had had second thoughts about this user, especially because I don't believe we think about adminship in the same way, but the nominations by a number of editors whom I respect deeply, as well as this [2] brilliant application of policy, leave me more than satisfied to support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. — BillC talk 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, seems level-headed enough, no indication they'd abuse the tools. Plus, 155 Wikipedians can't be wrong. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  155. Support - Good to see civility issues have improved. Definitely ready now. - Shudde talk 04:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - I appreciate his WP:GA contributions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. — Athaenara ✉ 09:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. See #49. Rudget 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Seems like a good user and has lots of edits. He should be a good admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs)
  158. Support per the above 150+ supports. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support One of the most clueful editors I have ever had the joy of working with. Trusilver 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support thoughtful editor. SunCreator (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support completely. the wub "?!" 16:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support I'm confident having seen VanTucky interact with others lately that all concerns from the previous RfA have been taken to heart. Shell babelfish 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Superfluous Support!, but adding it anyway. Per answers to questions, contributions and other comments, especially those by Pedro and Katr67. Civility is in my opinion one excellent trait in an admin. The ability to learn from constructive criticism is another. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support --John (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support - Adminship is a good thing for VanTucky. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support, has the experience I like to see in admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. Among many other things, I really like the fact that VanTucky speaks his mind. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support: I cannot believe I didn't see this before. I have no reason not to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support If I were writing an article on how to respond for RFA, I'd link to this one. Royalbroil 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Yes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Seen around to have confidence in this user, and their insightful answers to questions demonstrance a strong grasp of policy. --Bfigura (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support – most definitely —αlεx•mullεr 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support more than capable to help improve the project. Grsz11 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Strong Support. He's not going to abuse tools and make the encyclopedia better. Basketball110 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support No sense he'll abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support with pleasure. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support A pleasure working with him. jmcw (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support - I do not find the opposition convincing enough to sway my opinion of this fine editor. James086Talk | Email 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support - I have seen this user around before, and sorry to use a cliche, but I thought he already was an admin! ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (secret) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support - Seems to be a reformed, learned individual. Have trust that he would not abuse their rights. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Good editor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Not so sure after reading his responses to the "blanket revert"ing comments below. I don't know who's in the right, but it would be nice if VT's comments were less confrontational. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support - Huge asset to Wikipedia, dedicated and experienced. κaτaʟavenoTC 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - An excellent contributor who I have seen around and am sure will make a good admin. I read through the opposition's concerns and I have decided they do not concern me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support - A wonderful contributor who shows good understanding of Wikipedia Policy and in my opinion would not abuse the Admin Tools.--Mifter (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support - the consensus is already evident but nonetheless - extensive experience in resolving content disputes and dealing with fringe theories on routinely controversial pages in a calm and collaborative manner. Strikes a good balance between involving others in debates and ensuring their points are responded to, while identifying and not feeding the inevitable trolls. An excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and should make a fine admin. Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Good contributor, enough time has passed since block for sure, points about the AfD's haven't been troublesome enough to hold back a good user. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Why not? Very friendly, trustworthy, and has a catchy name (the three most important admin qualities). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support without worry, has always seemed a good editor. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. support JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. +SupportLing.Nut (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Per most the stuff that was said above. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support per my esteemed colleagues, above. It's weak, but there are 190-some-odd reasons to support above, and it would be unreasonable to duplicate them here. Candidate is a good editor who would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong Oppose due to unnecessarily unpleasant interaction with editor at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5 (notice how TenPoundHammer civily persuaded me to change my stance whereas VanTucky just added to wikidrama) and weak arguments expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Grey's Anatomy (an AfD tainted by participated from banned User:Dannycali), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy (another AfD tainted by Dannycali's participation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological List of Playboy Playmates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) (an AfD tainted by participation from banned User:Burntsauce), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Elementary School (Kansas), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti in popular culture (an AfD tainted by banned User:IPSOS, User:Burntsauce, and User:Eyrian), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer (2nd nomination). Thus, a bit too zealous to remove articles that we do not have clear consensus to remove (any examples that were deleted were marred by the participation of sock accounts). I am also persuaded by fairly widespread concerns at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky#Oppose and a block for revert warring. As I do not like to say only negtaive things, I did agree with him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (second nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I have to say is that I request you read my answer to Q10. Thanks for participating, VanTucky 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what do you think about ones like the Yeti in popular culture discussion, where at least three sock accounts were on the deletion side and many of the others were of the WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM variety? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, as an example: things like sock puppets (if they are proven ones, not just accusations) should obviously be taken in to account when determining what the consensus is. Also note that I use the phrase consensus, not vote tally. Simple "per nom" votes carry little to no weight when determining consensus. All that said, I don't name AFD closing as an intended area of administrative contribution above for a reason. VanTucky 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough, I'll switch to regular oppose then for now and will watch the discussion for other developments as if RfAs are not "votes", I think it is important to acknowledge how later questions are answered. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this is the discussion regarding Van Tucky's request for adminship, not specific AfD's... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that the first concern stems from a debate in which you both were involved -- my less involved perspective doesn't give me any concerns (for whatever that's worth.) At least some of the other concerns are from last August, well before the first RfA -- again, for whatever it's worth. Just pointing these things out, I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first concern is an example of how his chastising my oppose is NOT what got me to change my stance; rather the candidate's civil interactions with me changed my perspective. It therefore demonstrates what does and does not work as effective ways of engaging Wikipedians. VanTucky ineffectively engaged me in that RfA; TenPoundHammer by contrast effectively engaged me. To be fair, VanTucky's reply to my oppose here is far more reasonable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How he argues in AfDs provides insight into his understanding of inclusion policies and guidelines. Because one third of adminship tools have to deal with deleting or restoring articles, how someone views content is relevant to their role as an admin. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why is the block from July 5 of 2007 a factor? VanTucky has stated himself that he's learned from the block, and anyway, it was over 9 months ago: that's easily enough time to learn from a block, and it took place several months before his first RfA happened (and it's roughly the same amount of time I've been an admin, for that matter). Acalamari 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By itself, yes, probably not a big deal, but it is combined with the various reasons other opposed and my own unfavorable experiences. One reason alone can easily be discounted, but even if there were a bunch of small things, they add up. Plus, I think most RfAs I've participated in have been users who have never been blocked or if they have were unblocked. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. Acalamari 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose a reference fetishist... see Talk:Geyser where he wants a reference per paragraph for purely decorative purposes, for example. GA is an incredibly bureaucratic and totally pointless process... I seriously question the judgment of anyone involved in it. --Rividian (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought I don't have time to reply to the abuse the above opposer seems to have been subjected to, which I'm sure people are typing up for me already... I'll come back this weekend to reaffirm my oppose if I feel like it, and be berated by the GA fans. See you then. --Rividian (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly no fan of GA, but I'm struck by the abundant lack of Good Faith in your comment above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struck by how what I said would happen did happen below. --Rividian (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm also surprised that you would describe the calm and reasoned disagreement with your position below as an attack on you. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I'm a GA fan. I wouldn't have berated you, but rather, pointed out that he called it a rule of thumb, and didn't make a big deal about it. So I draw the opposite conclusion to you. But having differing opinions is a good thing. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per what I said above... we don't need more admins who treat inline citations as if they're decorations, requesting one per paragraph. --Rividian (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm going to say is that I remind readers that the work Rividian is talking about is in relation to my reviews of articles according to the GA criteria, not all articles. VanTucky 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What he omits to say is he himself has made edits [3] to make the GA criteria include that ridiculous one-per-paragraph thing (changes that apparently didn't stick). --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Remark. I'm not sure this is as big a deal as you are making it out to be. It's VanTucky's honest opinion on referencing in articles. As it happens, that's somewhat unrelated to any direct administrator actions, except, perhaps, an obscure sub-task, such as resolving edit warring over referencing. I think you're looking for bad points, and have found one (rather weak, unfortunately), and are sticking to it, rather than undertaking a cost-benefit analysis, and looking at the bigger picture. Just my two pence. Anthøny 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Referencing is at the core of many content disputes though, and admins have a frequent role in settling those. This mentality that the number of inline citations is more important than what the articles or even the references actually say... that's just not one I want admins to have. --Rividian (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get in to a debate over in-line cites here, but saying I think the number of citations is more important than what article or refs say is a misrepresentation of my views (according to me anyway). VanTucky 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of GA criteria moved to talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Seeing him around occasionally, I'm not convinced the very consistent concerns of many opposers last time (in which I did not participate) over temperament, civility and aggressiveness have been overcome. No heckling please! Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heckle Heckle! :) ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose. Although his user talkpage no longer gives the elitist reasoning he once gave for his choice of editing names, nor the gratuitously cruel and again elitist link to to what he used to refer to as a " rube" on his user page shows an attitude that all to many administrators have. It is my strong, but humble, opinion that the project would be better off without this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet your username could be seen as offensive to I don't know maybe people of a certain color? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for posterity, not really in response to this oppose, I want to point out that my user page history only goes back to January 08, as I had it deleted in order to get rid of some personal information that once appeared there. VanTucky 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you deny that you linked to a Myspace page and assured other editors that you were not the" rube" to whose page you linked? Did you not pick "Vantucky" to because the name referred to those Iroq driving , wrestling watching, mullet-wearing Other and that in picking it you knew it was pejorative?In the interest of fairness, I think all the other editors here should be able to see that side of you. By the way, my user name passed muster and ne'er a single person of color has objected to it. The only ones who throw this red herring out seem to have some deep seated White Guilt. This is not about my username. I do not aspire to adminship. It is about this user and his quest for those powers. My concern is legitimate., and your ad hominem red herring attack is noted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because someone does not object does not mean they are not offended, it could just mean they are unaware of the process for challenging a username. Equating a lack of a complaint to not being offended is faulty logic. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, tis is soooooo not about my username. Imagine my name was , say, Movietime. Now please speak to my just criticism of the previous content of this user's page where he linked to a third person's Myspace , labeling the person a "rube" and thereby holding this person up for ridicule by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that this is behavior that is becoming an administrator, then more power to you. Please say so in the Support group above. If you want to open another complaint on my username because I object to this nomination, I'm sure you know how to do this. For your information, I am not only a direct descent of a confederate war hero, but also that of a slave. One of my grandfathers was an octoroon.Now if you would like to speak to the issue at hand, then let's discuss this nomination. If you want to discuss my Username, then feel free to reply to my talkpage.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only pointing out the hypocrisy concerning your username complaint. As to VanTucky's actions from nearly a year ago (I believe, but certainly last year), I neither condemn nor condone these actions from nearly a year ago. Since nearly a year ago he apparently removed them when someone complained, again nearly a year ago. Since this happened nearly a year ago, and he has changed his ways and improved over that long period of time (did I mention nearly a year ago) the community takes that into account. I did not support his candidacy last time due to concerns of civility, but since that time (not nearly a year ago) he has improved and since we tend not to hold things over people's heads forever, I and about 175 people have moved on. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That content was there in December, a mere 4 to 5 months ago. Perhaps he could tell us when this was removed? I'm thinking when he removed the "personal" information. My complaint is that the reasons he gave for choosing the username were very different than the ones I employed. You can find the pertinent discussion on my talk page and an archived username complain page. I could care less what people choose to name themselves; however, I AM concerned about who is given the plenipotentiary powers of adminship. This demonstrates the one problem with consensus and underlines my concern with elitism: With so many people in favor, this user feels free to not address my legitimate concerns. Again, I note the personal attack in your choice of "hypocrisy" and your lack of civility and would ask that you refrain from both.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a fascinating word, but you might not realise that in Wikipedia only developers have "plenipotentiary" powers, in the sense of unlimited or full powers, and nobody has such powers in the sense of being deputised to act on behalf of somebody else. We're all responsible for our own actions here, we can't select an agent to act for us. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This leads me to more questions about this nomination[4]. It would seem that he considers personal attacks and incivility to be "reasoned advocacy".--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:ATTACK to refine your view on what constitutes a personal attack. Thanks, Grsz11 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Die4Dixie, review what a personal attack is as defined here at Wikipedia. A personal attack would be when I would attack an attribute of you, for instance age, race, the color of your hair or sexual orientation or, even if I had called you a hypocrite instead of labeling your argument as hypocrisy. Think of it as similar to immutable characteristics, and the reasoning behind suspect classes. Now, calling your actions (i.e. your statement "elitist reasoning he once gave for his choice of editing names") hypocrisy due to your own issues with your username is attacking your actions and your argument, and not a personal attack. This is what debate on Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Attack the argument, not the editor. You may also want to assume good faith, but if not, feel free to seek out an admin about personal attacks. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC
    For you both:There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion....--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Oppose My experiences with this user have not be positive or encouraging that he suitable to be an admin. Giano (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mild oppose. As I speak he is blanket-reverting me based on a convention he hasn't read properly. This doesn't bespeak of the kind of thoroughness I like to see in administrators. Hesperian 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I am not "blanket reverting you", whatever that means. In fact, I only reverted once or twice before I realized you were making useful category edits along with images ones I disagreed with, so I quit undoing and started editing. Second, I have read the images convention properly, but it's been edited since the last time I read it in depth. You can't fault me for not re-reading guidelines every single time I cite them. Last and most important, what matters in voting in RFA is whether or not you trust me not to use the tools in a content dispute, something for which there is no evidence suggesting I would, in fact, the opposite (if you read my answers and admin coaching). VanTucky 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be fair, Hesperian, he just hadn't got round to altering the MoS [5] when he made those edits, but he did straight after (only to be swiftly reverted by Sandy Georgia...) Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm is not exactly a helpful contribution to the discussion, nor is claiming that bold editing of guidelines is impropriety. Of course I want to add what I think is a sensible style guideline to our manual of style. VanTucky 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, you're blanket part-reverting me then. The point is that you didn't stop at the articles on your own watchlist; you walked my own contributions seeking to revert all of them; that's where "blanket" comes into it. In doing so you incorrectly quoted the Manual of Style. In fact the Manual of Style supports me, not you, but your edit summaries falsely claim the opposite. I see now you're editing the Manual of Style to make it agree with you; fortunately that was reverted. If someone will make a unilateral edit to the Manual of Style in order to gain an advantage in a content dispute, I think I'm entitled to think that they'll use their admin tools to do the same... not that I accept your proscription of the grounds upon which I am permitted to oppose you. Hesperian 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that seems sufficient evidence that you don't trust me. So be it. VanTucky 04:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd, but I read "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences." in the WP:MOS, and I believe that's been there a while. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the dispute. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. But VT presumably couldn't find that bit, so boldly added his own figure of 250 somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Default thumb sizes and thumb sizes greater than or equal to 300px are consistent with that recommendation; thumb sizes less than 300px are not. VT was apparently unaware of the recommendation, leading him to blanket revert me with a false edit summary; e.g. [6] There's no suggestion that VT wasn't acting in good faith, but the fact remains that he charged off and reverted everything I did, without stopping to check the facts of the case. Hence my view that he probably oughtn't be trusted with rollback etc right now. Hesperian 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should take a closer look at my contribs, answers here etc. For example, you say I you don't think I should be trusted with rollback right now, so seem to have missed the fact that I've been a rollbacker for quite some time now. VanTucky 07:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you've got it doesn't imply that I must think you can be trusted with it. Hesperian 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact that I've had it for several months and not misused it does. That, and the fact that I've made it abundantly clear both here and in my admin coaching that I understand the utmost importance of maintaining a high level of communication as a sysop, which is why using rollback for anything but clear vandal fighting is inappropriate. But anyway, you're obviously of strong conviction on my unsuitability, so we can leave it at that. VanTucky 07:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose This is one of those situations where an incident happens to a user during an RfA that may reflect on how s/he will behave with the tools. I've seen that happen quite a bit here, lurking at RfA, actually! First VanTucky (VT) reverts Hesperian (Hesp) here and leaves a note at Hesp's talk page here, misquoting the MoS, which is an excusable mistake--this is a wiki after all, and many of us have been caught off guard by sudden policy changes. However, Hesp made him aware that the MoS did not support his edit in this reply on VT's talk page. After Hesp explained this to him, he reverted four more of Hesp's edits, before changing the MoS to agree with him. I am not opposing because VT made a mistake--I am opposing because after he was told he made a mistake, he went on making the same mistake. When he realized that WP:MoS did not support his edits, he changed the policy to agree with him! We have too many admins that do that sort of revisionist history now, I do not think we need another; additionally, I believe his approach to Hesp's oppose here comes off as confrontational. Combine that with the old civility concerns raised at his previous RfA and what I perceive as an insensitivity to the BLP problem, I must oppose. Allow me to explain the BLP concerns: In the Stefano diff he chides others for their lack of "cojones" for voting delete and in the (admittedly old) Angela Beesley AfD, he suggests that if you do not want to be a public figure, then you should just remove yourself from a position of public scrutiny and "grow the fuck up".[7]. We need admins that are sensitive to the BLP issue--these two diffs show a person who does not consider the affect that these articles have on real life people. He felt this way in June 2007 and feels similarly now, it seems. Respecting the subjects of our bios does not include telling other editors to "get cojones" or telling article subjects to "grow the fuck up". In conclusion, admitting when you made a mistake, being humble and polite about it, and apologizing when one screws up are skills that an admin needs--the recent events here suggests he does not have these skills. My concerns over his feelings on BLPs and his civility in general is what caused me to watch this RfA; this incident with Hesp just confirms the bad feelings I had about him being an admin. daveh4h 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to get in to a lengthy debate, but I will point out that the second AFD for the Beesley biography was literally my first serious venture in to the realm of XFD. I don't think it's a fair example of my XFD knowledge, and there is much said therein (on my part) that is completely wrong. VanTucky 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per daveh4h and his sleuth-like work. I wouldn't want this guy as an administrator.--Endless Dan 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose - This is both the strongest opposition I've felt in a while and among the most regretful. VanTucky does great things, especially in creating and improving content -- which is what we're here to do. However, my own observations of VanTucky are enough to make me oppose this nomination. Far too interested in deleting stuff, even in areas where his commentary is infused with a strong opinion bordering on prejudice, he has a tendency to make comments in such away that others' views and contributions are demeaned. That, in and of itself, would require me to oppose this nom. // Having read the other opposes above, I conclude that my observations matched what others had seen or experienced themselves. None of these problems are major issues, as long as others make the final call. But, giving this editor the keys (and the trust to use them) entails an unaaceptable risk, as well as creating a civility quagmire. --SSBohio 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By stuff do you mean articles? Because the only two recent AFDs I have participated in have been to try and keep them. That, and basically all I've done lately has been article creation and expansion, not XFD. VanTucky 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral: Not entirely sure on friendliness, but has definite done quite a bit of work for Wikipedia.--Bedford 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, VanTucky is one of the friendliest guys I know. Anthøny 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per concerns raised by dihydrogen monoxide but not an outright oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovich292 (talk • contribs)
    !vote indented as no sigBalloonman (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. VT's a great editor, but he needs to work on how he responds to people he doesn't agree with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. While I think that VanTucky as an admin would probably be a net positive for Wikipedia, the image size situation makes me hesitate from outright supporting him. For starters, I'm puzzled why none of the involved parties sought to discuss this first either at the Manual of Style talk page or at the Village Pump. I also think that VanTucky's comments could have been less controntational. On the other hand, he has been overall a great editor, and I feel that he has improved since his last RfA. --Kyoko 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that I did drop a talk note to Hespersian before there was any conflict at all. So I did try and make sure he understood my reasoning. VanTucky 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Has douche-like tendancies. --Endless Dan 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But have never once stooped to the level of name calling in an RFA to justify my position. Please redact your personal attack. If you honestly think I haven't sufficiently improved my civility to warrant your trust, that's your perogative. But calling me a douche is not. VanTucky 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great.--Endless Dan 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, that was rather personal and I see where it could be read as an attack. I think (and this is just my opinion) that you commented that way to be a bit saucy, since a straight comment could be boring. It didn't get received so well by VanTucky, so maybe you could rephrase it, just to clarify that no insult was intended. --SSBohio 19:14, 23 April 2008 (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