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
[edit]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. VanTucky 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
[edit]- 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.--KojiDude (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)
- 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.--KojiDude (Contributions) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 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? WilyD 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. VanTucky 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)