Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Alabamaboy

Final (46/1/1) ended 21:31 October 29 (UTC)

Alabamaboy (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Alabamaboy for adminship. As I have strived to apply professional copy editing skills to many poorly worded entries, I have found that many of the people who claim to embrace npov and other directives, including admins, do not always follow it. I have had a couple of issues and arguments over the editing of pages, including an incident where I was banned wrongly by an admin (a second admin recognized this and reinstated me), and it was at the behest of Alabamaboy's mediation that resolution was brought about (although I still think that the page that comes up when banned should be more accomodating to help the bannee protest their banning). That said, even when I disagree with his edits, or vice versa, he shows respect uncommon on Wikipedia, and not leaping to the worst conclusions. I have also done a little homework. He has about 2000 edits, and has done a lot of work on literature, especially the South of the U.S. and Black culture. I think he has the temperament, technical skill, and editorial skill to be a good admin. Iago Dali 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Iago Dali 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. Thank you for the nomination.--Alabamaboy 02:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support 100%, This is a guy that defended another user against "me" and here I am supporting him, why? Because of his loyalty, determination and dedication to Wikipedia. He will make a great admin. Tony the Marine 00:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Super Support, Awesome User... truly deserves it! PRueda29 03:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, We need more cool heads like this Wikipedian. Glad to support this nomination. Vaoverland 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support... but dont waste too much time with the turkeys vandals, keep on writing quality articles. Stbalbach 03:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Sweet user Alabama-boy!, Support from Old Europe. - Darwinek 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. —Wayward ^Talk 09:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support -JCarriker 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support this nomination for a professional, balanced, reasonable, and extremely polite Wikipedian. Yoninah 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support seems like a fair editor, though my personal preference is to allow RfAs to stand on their own without spamming user's talk pages to try and get votes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]chowells 11:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support of course. --hydnjo talk 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. FireFox 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support As I nominated him I support him. Iago Dali 13:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Although Alabamaboy hasn't gotten into the political sides of Wikipedia, he also hasn't gotten into the political sides of Wikipedia. He's levelheaded and concerned with establishing NPOV, clear articles. Also, it is important that southern literature and African American literature and culture have an administrator angel helping them along. The mop is frequently needed and the bucket frequently full on those subjects (and the articles stunted). Geogre 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Whole-hearted Support I had intended not to vote on any other users' RfAs until my own was closed, but this is one I can't pass up. One of the best literature contributors to Wikipedia, who keeps his head even in the face of real provocation. Dvyost 15:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Strong support, has been one of the few people doing solid work on African American topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, good editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, good editor and smart bloke. I do, however, echo the concerns of Dylons493 and chowells. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. His constructive approach is a real asset. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support, but I must urge not to spam user pages in the future. Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support I've seen him everywhere, I thought he was an adm. User:V. Molotov 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --Rogerd 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support - sorry I took so long to get around to voting!  BD2412 ^talk 21:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support - Helped with vandalism on Indian American article--Dangerous-Boy 21:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support I have seen him quite abit with the CDVF. I also thought he was already an admin.--Dakota 22:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Good user, give him the buttons. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. The Minister of War 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Seems like a thoroughly pleasant chap. The Singing Badger 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Sounds good to me, need more of these. Gryffindor 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support -- Francs2000 21:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, as per nomination. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support --Kefalonia 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support --tomf688^{talk} 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support - recently read a rather interesting article he'd written on DYK.--Scimitar ^parley 22:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support - Is enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and has convinced me that he is willing to face the responsibilities of being an admin. Pentawing 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support - We need more admins interested in literature, one of the most neglected and sloppy areas. Tfine80 05:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Don Diego^(Talk) 19:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support I want you to wield the mop! Shauri smile! 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
44. I thought I already voted! El_C 03:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
45. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support, Alabamaboy is like the user I wish I could be. Private Butcher 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [14] or he is excessivley sarcastic [15]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to discuss Boothy's voting patterns. You may, of course, open an RFC concerning him, but I suggest you look at the original RFC first. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No need for discord - Boothy's entitled to his vote, which comes in at one line of text on the page, and in any event appears to be largely discounted by bureaucrats due to the lack of accompanying explanation.  BD2412 ^talk 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I am adding discord, his behavior is atrocious. Molotov (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Boothy does vote reasonably. His standards are just high. See the RFA below where he votes support. Borisblue 03:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Boothy's votes are unreasonable, merely noting that he tends not to explain them, which lessens their weight in the eyes of some bureaucrats.  BD2412 ^talk 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, Aren't you givin' a lot more attention to this than y'all should? Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Ya know. Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Maybe leavin' it alone would be better. Geesh! --hydnjo talk 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)....

Neutral

1. Neutral Nothing personal but I'm uncomfortable with contacting users notifying them of one's Rfa. I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again. This slightly different as it's not a self-nom but it would be easy enough to get a nom from someone if one really wanted to be an admin. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal! Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In response to chowells concerns, my bad on that. I was just trying to let people I'd interacted with over the past half year know about the vote. I'd seen other RfA noms do this and didn't know it was frowned upon. --Alabamaboy 12:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's just a personal preference that I prefer not to see it. As User:Dylons493 said it's probably not as "bad" as a self-nom spamming pages. Anyway, that's it from me -- it was hardly a big deal IMO and you've learnt now that a few people frown on it and after all we are creating Wikipedia to learn (I think!) :) chowells 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, I welcome being informed of RFAs on people I've interacted with. I don't normally monitor WP:RFA. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well said Jmabel. Being informed of a nominee is not only OK but should be encouraged for the reason you stated. The line between notification and solicitation may be viewed differently by different people but in this case I believe that Alabamaboy was just notifying us and that's just fine with those who are familiar with his work here. --hydnjo talk 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. In the past, I have helped with the recent changes patrol and trying to find vandalism. I have also taken part in articles for deletion discussions. I would like to take a larger role in both of these efforts while continuing my work on the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates page, which (while not an admin chore) I find to be a fascinating yet often overlooked duty here at Wikipedia.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am particularly pleased with African American literature (which was my first featured article), Anti-Tom literature (which is an obscure yet interesting literary subject which no other encyclopdia on earth has probably touched), and Southern literature (a subject close to my heart).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. After African American literature became a FA, a user had objections to my overall approach on the article. To handle this issue, we had a discussion about the issue. I also brought into the discussion past contributors and reviewers of the article. My approach is to try and discuss any issue in a civilized manner and to bring in other users with an interest in the issue. I firmly believe in the value of reaching consensus on disputed edits.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.