Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2

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

VanTucky

Final (194/9/4); ended 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Co-nomination from Acalamari

It is a great honor that I have been given the chance to co-nominate

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.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Tucky 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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 (

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

• Links for VanTucky:
  talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi
  )

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

Discussion

• Just so everyone knows, I now have the edit summary reminder enabled in my preferences.
  Tucky 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have removed a number of questions from this RFA [1]. Enough is enough quite frankly. The funny questions haven't been funny for a while and the point they were originally making about excessive numbers of questions was lost some time ago. Think about how this process looks to newbies and people thinking of running at RfA for the first time. No need to make an already daunting process more so. If these questions were an irritation to some of the more experienced people, think about the mixed signals they send to others. I've removed the most obviously silly/political/unrelated to adminship questions. This should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the remaining questions, I just decided it was time for a line to be drawn, and I'm drawing it now. Please lets make this self-regulating though (bureaucrats shouldn't need to be the question police). WjBscribe 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

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.
    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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 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!
    Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. Yes, of course. (By the way, I nicked your userpage. You are credited mind.)
    inthegarden 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, 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. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support Would like to see better edit summary usage, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 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.

    talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

52. Support - I've had only good experiences with VanTucky. Good luck!
    thew 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. --Sharkface^T/_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
    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...:(}
    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

    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,
    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
    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! --
    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.
    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.
    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. Walton^One 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - per questions! Good Editor! Good Luck!
    (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. CycloneNimrod^talk? 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.
     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. Keegan^talk 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!
     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. Spencer^T♦C 10:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support - will make a fine admin. Jauerback^dude?/_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.
     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
     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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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 MacDui^Talk/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 - Cenarium^Talk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support. Good answers to questions, participation in FA process, WP:100. ~
     U) 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: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.
     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
     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.
     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.
     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.
     11 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.
     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. James086^{Talk | 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. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 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.
     (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 Dominator^Talk_Edits 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. +Support
     Ling.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]