Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2

VanTucky's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC):

Go back to see caveats or to check another user.

User:VanTucky

run at Wed Apr 16 18:58:52 2008 GMT

Category:	7 Image:	97 Mainspace	11586 Portal:	1 Talk:	3138 Template talk:	78 Template:	133 User talk:	3592 User:	483 Wikipedia talk:	615 Wikipedia:	2875 avg edits per page	3.90 earliest	04:38, 8 August 2006 number of unique pages	5798 total	22605 2006/8 	57 	2006/9 	25 	2006/10 	18 	2006/11 	118 	2006/12 	77 	2007/1 	175 	2007/2 	474 	2007/3 	691 	2007/4 	1800 	2007/5 	2409 	2007/6 	1794 	2007/7 	2202 	2007/8 	2273 	2007/9 	1913 	2007/10 	1689 	2007/11 	1768 	2007/12 	1050 	2008/1 	1442 	2008/2 	1285 	2008/3 	849 	2008/4 	496 	(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 934	Domestic sheep 273	The Vancouver Voice 245	Wolf-dog hybrid 235	Tai chi chuan 210	Chen style tai chi chuan 197	Guinea pig 190	Herdwick (sheep) 162	Vinkensport 112	Vancouver, Washington 103	Go (board game) 97	Jiddu Krishnamurti 89	Dog 78	Guinea pig breed 78	Chinese martial arts 72	Goat

Talk: 219	Guinea pig 160	Parapsychology 72	Domestic sheep/Archive 1 63	Jiddu Krishnamurti 63	Racism 56	Boerboel 53	Dog 52	Tai chi chuan 47	Homosexuality 47	Go (board game) 46	Conservapedia 41	Veganism 36	Anal sex 34	Sam Harris (author)/Archive 2 33	Gelding

Category: 5	Goat stubs Image: 5	Cruciblecover.jpg 4	Barbados blackbelly 2 Elkins.jpg 4	Mutton Renaissance Campaign logo.png 4	Blacksheep-poster.jpg 4	9780385663793.jpg 3	Ram and goat horizontal.jpg 2	Suffolk Ewe with twin lambs.JPG 2	Coat of Arms-Sebright Baronets.png 2	7 month old Suffolk Ram Lamb.JPG 2	Sangamon Farms Blackie Ewe.jpg 2	Barbados blackbelly Elkins.jpg 2	Ram and goat vertical.jpg 2	Blackface ram ewe.jpg 2	Scottish Blackface Sheep yowes1.jpg Template: 56	GA number 12	Washington 7	GAchecklist 7	Goat-stub 5	FGAN 4	RfA-thanks 4	Wikipediahistory 4	Template sandbox 3	Martialart-stub 3	Mind-body interventions 3	Alternative medical systems 3	GAList2/doc 2	Alcoholic beverages 2	Martial arts 2	Navajo Nation

Template talk: 32	Did you know 25	Wikipediahistory 9	Alternative medical systems 4	Alibend 3	Animal liberation 2	FGAN User: 199	VanTucky/gallery 88	VanTucky 35	VanTucky/Who 34	VanTucky/What 26	VanTucky/Sandbox 20	Acalamari/Admin coaching/VanTucky 19	VanTucky/Why 12	VanTucky/Navbar 7	VanTucky/Featured Article categories to be filled 6	The Ungovernable Force/Poll 4	VanTucky/WikiwednesdayCard 4	Nehrams2020/Sandbox 3	Chubbles 3	Java7837/userboxing/tossed 3	Java7837/userboxing/Coffeesnob

User talk: 261	VanTucky 33	Jimbo Wales 33	TimVickers 26	Bradeos Graphon 22	Peteforsyth 22	Chubbles 21	HammerHeadHuman 21	PericlesofAthens 20	Wikidudeman 19	Montanabw 17	Samir 15	AGK 14	LaraLove 14	Phaedriel 11	David Shankbone

Wikipedia: 348	Good article nominations 80	Administrator intervention against vandalism 80	Requests for comment/User names 73	Requests for adminship/VanTucky 63	Requests for page protection 62	Good articles 57	Good article reassessment 56	Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film 53	Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (6th nomination) 46	Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 42	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 38	Featured article candidates/Domestic sheep 34	Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) 30	Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions 27	Good article nominations/backlog/items

Wikipedia talk: 175	Good article nominations 43	WikiProject Dogs 37	Flagged revisions/Sighted versions 28	Good article criteria 24	What Wikipedia is not 16	Manual of Style 16	Avoiding harm 16	WikiProject Agriculture 14	Userboxes/Ideas 14	WikiProject Good articles 12	WikiProject Martial arts 12	WikiProject Wine 11	Requests for adminship/Crockspot 11	WikiProject Oregon 10	Removal of adminship

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot. Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Removal of some questions by WJBscribe, one instance which might be put back in
While generally supportive, I think one question should have been retained - that pertaining to a block by Conservapedia (or whatever it is called). The answer indicates that it was a matter which likely would not have effected Wikipedia, and so no conclusions may be drawn from the blocking by another online encyclopedia. I do not, however, propose resurrecting the question and answer without consensus (including the agreement of the candidate). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to adding the Conservapedia question back in, but I don't care either way. You have my blessing. Van Tucky 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The text of the question and associated answer removed was:


 * 19. How did you manage to get blocked from contributing to Conservapedia?
 * A. I didn't think the dictionary definition of homosexuality was "an immoral sexual lifestyle". But they truth is, I shouldn't have signed up for an account to begin with. I knew I wouldn't be a good fit there.


 * I think that, although the question could very easily be a serious one, it was intended as a humorous dig at VanTucky, and his somewhat "robust" character and views (do I insert </diplomatic here? :) WjB got it right here, actually: all the questions posted alongside the Conservapedia, and indeed all the questions he removed, were joke questions. Anthøny  21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In my view the question was trite - people get blocked on Conservapedia all the time for not writing with a sufficiently right wing point of view. The answer to the question was totally predictable and I don't see what impact it has on someone's suitability to be an admin here. WjBscribe 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree, if somebody was not immediately blocked from Conservapaedia that would be a black mark indeed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I am not (and from the response, never will be) familiar with the Conservapedia ethos, so I wasn't aware of the humuouressnessness of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is of unquestionable humorosity. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Rividian's oppose

 * I could be wrong, but this appears to be an argument over GA criteria rather than VanTucky. Judging from reviews I've read, there is a very solid consensus for what he wrote, he's not out on a limb there. - Dan (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the big deal is here. I, too, strongly believe that every paragraph should have at least one reference, entirely for the purpose of verifying the information in the paragraph. As per Dank55, there is no reason to oppose VanTucky's RfA on the grounds of the GAN criteria. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- References are a very important consideration for a "good" article. Making sure every paragraph is reliably sourced is not excessive when you realise that good articles are only in a ratio of about 1 in 587. For editors striving to bring articles up to standard suitable for an encyclopedia i.e. fact checking, then the bar needs to be set high. Shouldn't someone snow this RFA? Currently 110 to 2 so wasting valuable editing time here.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you never know. Maybe suddenly somone will reveal that he, I don't know, beats kittens in his spare time and like, 100 people change their vote. There's six days left, it could happen.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll await the kitten announcement.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His first RFA was 64/1 at one point and ended in failure at 83/42. When someone has a lot of friends at RFA a wave of quicky supports can easily appear... it often takes a few days for the broader community (who don't live at RFA) to appear, and once it's not so trendy to support... Maybe that won't happen here, who knows. But it happened before... --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt there will be enough people opposing that will offset 110 supports. Also, I don't often participate in RfA, but I supported because VanTucky is an excellent editor. Not because I am his friend, not because I've heard of him before, but because I feel he is an excellent editor. I'm sure the majority of people won't support entirely because they know the nominee. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh there were enough opposes last time to have offset 110 supports... and if you hadn't heard of him before, how did you know what kind of an editor he was? Your comment has several plot holes. --Rividian (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't support just because I've heard of him before. Of course I've heard of him, and I've followed his work on Wikipedia for a while. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, everyone attacking me here has some sort of "good article participant" thing on their userpage. This is exactly what I said would happen! --Rividian (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the word "attacking" is a little strong? Would you mind withdrawing that remark please? Just because I hold a different opinion doesn't mean I am "attacking" you.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending him just because of GAN. I don't wish to argue further, and I respect your opinion, which everybody is allowed to have. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely ludicrous. Many, many GA reviews request inline citations.  You can't say VanTucky's going to go around deleting articles because they wouldn't pass a GAN.  You really are assuming bad faith there.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, time to draw a line here. Brief remarks on a few points of an oppose vote is one thing, but we're now having accusations of bad faith thrown around here. Nobody wants this rfa to become a drama fest, but it's quickly becoming one. Regardless of the merits of an oppose, everybody has the right to register one. Let's leave this vote be. Anthøny  14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm, an article with large chunks of unreferenced information isn't good, eh? Wily D 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People confuse inline citations with accuracy... to the point where we say that "lots of inline citations" = accurate, "not many" = inaccurate, when really, there's absolutely no causation there. Inline citations can be total BS, uncited paragraphs can be totally inaccurate. When people demand lots of inline citations but don't seem to spend much time actually checking them, I think that's bad for Wikipedia. One of the big issues with GA is how its reviewers believe they can assess an article just by glancing at the length of the intro and the number of citations, without reading a word. There's so much assumption that citations mean accuracy, but we need to worry about actual accuracy, not decorative accuracy. --Rividian (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but unless you give a citation (also required by the core content policy of WP:V), how can we check the accuracy? OR are people supposed to read through every source in an article (which could include 500 page books) to try an discern where that paragraph/statement came from to verify the accuracy? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people should think about whether the claim is even challenged or likely to be challenged, per WP:V, before demanding a citation just for the sake of it. In academic writing you only cite such claims, or quotations and statistics. In Wikipedia we have people wanting citations for claims nobody questions, or claims they haven't even read or thought about... it's just a gigantic waste of time and a misplaced priority. When we treat the citation as the symbol of accuracy, it's not surprising that actually checking them seems to be something rarely done in GA assessments. -Rividian (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In academic writing you also have original thought, see WP:NOR. Thus I'm not sure how you would source your own brain. And the last time I wrote anything academic, you source everything that is not your own thoughts (thus here at Wikipedia where we are not allowed to have our own thoughts, that would mean sourcing everything). Aboutmovies (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel like we need to put a resolved template on this issue. He has his reasons for opposing.  It's been overly discussed.  Now, let it go. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. Van Tucky 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)