Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Afaprof01


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Afaprof01
Final (0/9/0); Ended 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (closed per WP:SNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination
– I am a professor emeritus who enjoys sharing knowledge and information. Being chosen Sysop would be a great honor and an even greater responsibility, challenge, and opportunity to make a greater contribution. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I have a strong interest in reliable sources and have minimal experience both there and AfD. My preference, besides "where most needed," is to work directly with editors who need assistance and encouragement. I've noted that encouragement is somewhat lacking on Talk pages, even from Admins.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I bring a PhD in three fields, years as an higher education administrator and professor, CEO of a nonprofit corporation staffed by volunteers who needed a nurturing rather than an authoritarian approach, peer-reviewed publications, and a history of achievement and leadership that earned for me the distinction of being named "emeritus" Dean and Professor.
 * B: By temperament, training and experience, I am quality oriented in writing and research. Having supervised graduate students' theses and "defended" my own dissertation and peer-reviewed articles, I am keenly attuned to correctness, article integrity, and the need to make "hard" decisions at times, even to the great disappointment of the author. I am continually amazed at the large number of sites that duplicate Wikipedia articles. That raises the ante even higher for high quality articles. I cringe when I see flagrant error, lack of substantiation, poor sources, and vandalism. I think of how instantly that will be replicated on countless sites, and how many students and other researchers will see it.
 * C: Having been a university professor and dean for four decades, there is some maturity and lack of impulsiveness that I bring. I am a "people person" and prefer not to flex the muscle of power and authority, but to work cooperatively with the belief that the whole is (usually) greater than the sum of its parts. My preferred leadership style is what some have termed a coaching or servant leadership approach, placing a priority on helping others achieve their objectives within the constraints of the enterprise (organization). I combine with that facilitative leadership that requires putting the primary needs of the group and the organization ahead of selfish or arbitrary needs. I like to be right, but I've lived long enough to know that I can and will be wrong on some occasions. When that happens, I acknowledge it, apologize, correct it, and move on. (But I still hate to be wrong!)


 * 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:Yes. I feel stressed when another user (or admin) seems to arbitrarily (without sufficient explanation) make a power play with an article in which I am invested. The worst experience I've had was an anonymous user from Missouri who was totally antisocial and probably pathological. His edits were bizarre and his Talk page comments were the most offensive I've ever seen on Wikipedia. After his 30 day block, he returned with vigor and venom.
 * B: As may be seen, my main interest is in articles related to Christianity. Having been an apologist for many years, I am a moderate conservative who at times is annoyed by editors at either extreme—liberal or fundamentalist. They seem to do more disruptive categorical editing and Talk page comments that slam shut the door on constructive debate. The "how dare you disagree with me" approach is still hard for me to deal with, and probably remains the challenge area in which I most need to grow.


 * Additional optional questions from Olaf Davis
 * 4. Further to question 2: RfA !voters normally base their decision on whether a candidate can be trusted with the tools by looking at their past edits. Would you like to draw our attention to any articles you've written or 'behind the scenes' work (like participation in deletion discussions, anti-vandalism, or other useful things) of which you're particularly proud?
 * A:

General comments

 * Links for AFAProf01:
 * Edit summary usage for Afaprof01 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Afaprof01 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * User has significant article contributions and so I think the opposers based on his lack of diffs on question 2 should take a little more time to consider this. That said, I do feel that this candidate has failed to demonstrate experience in admin areas. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat  15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Editor has the temperament to be an admin but currently lacks the skills. Inability to find the three basic questions is pretty telling, but even more telling is making experimental edits that broke the db-g7 template less than two months ago, see the history. Looie496 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - Comments like "[liberal editors] seem to do more disruptive categorical editing and Talk page comments that slam shut the door on constructive debate" are completely unsuitable generalisations for a prospective administrator to make. I also highly disagree with the candidate's reliance on unverified real-life qualifications. The answers to Q2 and Q3 are some of the worst RfA answers that I have seen. — neuro  14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per neuro and your answer to Q3.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. No experience in administrative arenas. Gain some experience in WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, or really any administration-related areas in which you are interested (hard to tell, since you didn't answer Q1), and I will consider further. Tan   &#124;   39  14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Agree with the above. Weak in some areas an admin needs to be strong in, in my view. No answer to Q1 does not bode well. [UPDATE: Answer to Q1 has gone up after my original post, but does little to sway me.]  Self nomination does not feel right, and no one speaks in his favor as of this writing. Wish this applicant the best, however, if still interested in the future.  Jusda  fax  15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to weak answer to Q1 and bad answers to Q2 & 3. "Yes. I feel stressed when another user (or admin) seems to arbitrarily (without sufficient explanation) make a power play with an article in which I am invested." is worrying - this kind of behaviour will be abundant in administrator life. As far as I can tell, there is not a sufficient need for you to gain the tools and your areas of expertise (eg article writing) can be done without them. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Answers to questions leave me with the impression they do not even understand what a Wikipedia admin is.  No discussion in the questions about how any of the tools would be used or what experience they have in areas requiring tools.  There is not enough experience to show that this would be a net positive to the community.  GB fan  talk 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per GB fan. Seems to think adminship is a given without knowing what it is, and that's odd. SluggoOne (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, Q3B. --Aqwis (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * "I cannot find the 3 questions to answer, and hope they are "in the mail."" <--- waiting on answers. — neuro  14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose. — neuro  14:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awaiting answers... (I'm going to ask a few questions)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Opposing - neuro brings up too great of concerns, and I already had doubts about Q3.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.