Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Borgarde

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

Early withdrawal (2/2/0)

Borgarde (talk · contribs) - Self nomination —Borgarde^talk 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved with Wikipedia for over two years and think I'm ready to be involved with helping administrate the project.

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 intend to help clear the administrative back logs, especially the CSDs and AFDs as I think these are getting a bit cluttered. Unwatched pages would also be another page I would like to help with, as these would be pages that are more vulnerable to vandalism. I will also help out wherever need, like helping editors with deleted articles, protection, rollback rights, etc.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am not so much as a 'article builder' per se, but I seem to be more involved with maintenance. This can be seen by having around 5000 of my edits in article space. Any article I create is normally stub level, and I create articles when I see the need for it where they can be improved (this is mainly with my work with WP:BASEBALL). That being said, I have been helping get lists of baseball players to include content, a lot are currently incomplete, but like Wikipedia it is all a work in progress and am getting around to it as I have time. My main content interests are Australian politics and baseball. I am also more recently involved with New page patrolling.

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: I was involved with a dispute a while back with a User:Nationalist over an incident about the naming of Taiwan/Republic of China. I was essentially trying to get the user to follow the guideline and as I recall the user ended up being banned.

Another incident I was involved in was nearly a year ago with a Rebecca over my mass-creation of Australian politician stubs. I think she handled the situation extremely badly, deleting all the articles without discussion when I had other editors appraisal, eventually I gave up because I just really could not be bothered dealing with her. I have learnt from this situation as well that by biting editors and not being civil you can create them to not want to contribute. I think this is one of the moments I stopped bothering going out of my way to improve Australian political articles because I did not like the way I was dealt with. For instance, I believe the mass-creation was reasonable because the articles could be further expanded, like I did for Ralph Jacobi (still a stub, but further expanded), but there was no discussion which is what I did not like. As an administrator I would make sure to discuss on issues involving amounts of articles like this before determining a consensus on the issue.

• See Borgarde's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Borgarde: Borgarde (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

1. Support WP:Baseball participant.--LAAFan 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Yeah sure. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll expand: I believe they have been around long enough without doing anything terribly stupid that they won't have trouble with the admin tools. I have lower standards than a lot of people, I suppose. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose; According to the edit counter you've got >6 (I can't give an exact number, it only shows the 10 most popular) contributions to the WP space such as AfD's; this implies little or no (closer to no) experience participating in a section you say you want to work in with the admin tools. In the last 2000 edits you've participated in one article for deletion. Not only does this imply experience but it implies you have no need for the tools; most of your work seems to be in WP:BASEBALL and similar doing maintainance and article work, not admin-related areas. I'm also a bit worried (although I appreciate support/oppose votes can have many reasonings) by the support votes; "yeah sure" and "WP:BASEBALL participant" don't seem to be good reasons (to me) to hand over the banhammer. Ironholds 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "The banhammer"? That's a terrible way of thinking about admins. I do think about whether I support or not a bit; I'm mostly working from the idea of WP:NOBIGDEAL: I doubt whether he would do anything abusive. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, working in WP:AIV is very much like being a "banhammer", most accounts submitted to WP:AIV are blocked or banned. In addition, adminship is no big deal. The potential to use the tools badly is a big deal, and we have no idea if this user will use the tools wrongly because the candidate has so little experience in admin areas. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To Tombomp: The Banhammer is a common nickname for the admin tools; it isn't meant to be "I believe the admin tools exist for the sole purpose of banning recalcitrant users". Ironholds 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I tend to believe it's a bit dramatic, but OK. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, verging on strong oppose pretty much per Ironholds. You cannot say you're going to work at AfD when your activity there is less than occasional. Oh, and for the record, I'm not counting the two AfD's since Ironholds oppose. As has been said in the past few unsuccessful RfA's, "you shot yourself in the foot on this one". I'm also strongly worried by the support votes, they offer little rationale. In short, I'm not sure you have the need for the tools (poor argument I know) but I can't even be sure that you're a net positive by your lack of admin-related activities. Keep up the good article work though, I like article creation. Just a little more activity in admin areas would be nice. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose- Per Ironholds. You say you want to work in AFD's, but I see little work in that area. I really don't see that you need the tools. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am verging on Strong oppose too, and as was pointed out above, you need to work more on admin areas. America69 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.