Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:20, 8 July 2016

Revision as of 06:31, 8 July 2016

Line 106:

::'''A:''' Neither. If I care about an issue enough to be either stubborn or accommodating, I'm involved and shouldn't go anywhere near any admin tools in that area.

::Let me substantiate the question. It's not about you, it's about which quality you'd find desirable in an administrator (and not necessarily involved). Stubbornness, taken in the context of someone with a fixed stance. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#93f">QEDK</span>]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#c60">T</span>]] <span style="color:#6F4E37">&#9749;</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#060">C</span>]])</small></span> 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

:::I just noticed this follow-up. Defining stubbornness as someone with a fixed stance, I would not want a stubborn administrator. Everyone, including administrators, are entitled to their opinions, but they also need to listen to the opinions of other editors. The encyclopedia is improved most by discussing issues rather than throwing down a bold vote and logging off. I'm not the perfect editor, by any means. Not even close. I get it wrong sometimes, and when I do, I try to do everything I can to make it right. A diff was provided by one of my co-nominators that I believe shows this quality, but I can offer up a good number of recent examples, some of which have been alluded to by other editors below. [[User_talk:Peter_coxhead#CITEVAR_RfC_supervoting|Here's]] [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_23#Template:1989_All-Australian_team|two]] of the most recent. At the same time, if an accommodating editor is one who either doesn't hold opinions or shies away from defending their opinions, I wouldn't want an accommodating administrator either. If I instead defined accommodating as being open to listening to other editors and incorporating different perspectives into the discussion, I'd absolutely want that quality in an administrator.

:::Unfortunately, I'm still falling in the "It depends" kind of non-answer camp. If I was forced to choose between stubbornness and the first definition of accommodating, I'd still take accommodating, since a stubborn administrator has a high potential to damage the encyclopedia when they inevitably make a mistake and refuse to acknowledge or correct it. Ignoring the definitions/words entirely, my idea of an ideal administrator is someone who brings a half-full mind to the table. An admin needs to bring ideas or they're useless, but they also need to keep some space open for the ideas of other editors. Hopefully that gets at the heart of what you were asking. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small>₁₃</small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 06:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

;Additional question from [[User:NewYorkActuary|NewYorkActuary]]

:'''19.''' In your response to Question 7, you noted that "when determining consensus, strength of arguments is crucial". In a discussion of one of your recent RfC closures ([[User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 2#RfC at Talk:Time Person of the Year|here]]), you stated "My role as closer is not to evaluate my subjective opinion on quality of arguments". Do you see a contradiction between these two statementts and, if so, how do you resolve it?