Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maverick Leonhart

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

Maverick Leonhart

Final (0/6/0); Closed per WP:NOTNOW 05:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Maverick Leonhart (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship for several key reasons. The first reason is that I feel as if my opinion has mattered less and less over the last year or so. I don't mean I plan on imposing my will freely as an admin, but rather I feel people put a little more weight into what admins have to say, so rather than be blatantly ignored or criticized, my opinion might actually hold a little weight. Again, I'm not planning on imposing my will freely. I just want my voice heard, and right now it seems like I'm not being heard. The second reason is the fact that there are so many articles that I see on Wikipedia that are very unencyclopedic in nature. I would like to be able to take a more active roll in determining the fate of these articles than a simple Delete or Keep. I would like to be able to look over the results, and judge consensus accordingly. I've also seen many articles unjustly deleted due to consensus not being taken into account, which I would not tolerate. The third reason is the fact that I am also actively involved in vandalism reversal (I admit as of lately I've been less active, but currently I am coming back to it) and with basic user privileges it is difficult to keep up with the sometimes overwhelming vandalism that can occur. The final reason I would like to be considered for adminship is a simple one. I spend a good amount of time online, and in that time I could more than easily help resolve debates and minor issues between users as well as protect articles which are the subject of heavy vandalism and user pages upon their request. Using these privileges, I know I can help make Wikipedia the accurate source of information that it deserves to be, and nothing would satisfy me more than succeeding in this mission. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 04:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: My plan is to be heavily active in both vandalism reversion and prevention as well as dispute resolution. In my time here I've seen many disputes go unresolved for an extended period, and yet no one has taken an interest in it. I would also take part in moving articles to new namespaces if it is deemed proper.

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

A: My best contribution was the article Shinzo. Back when I first made this article, I knew nothing about working with Wikipedia, and needless to say the original article looked like crap. But I learned more about Wikipedia and over time went back and tweaked it (after it had been repeatedly tweaked by others). Looking at it now I am very proud of what that article has become. I take great pride in knowing I started an article that turned into such a clean an efficient page. Beside that, I'd say my best contributions to Wikipedia are the edits I've made in the name of vandalism reversion due to the fact that those vandalism attempts are what give Wikipedia a bad name throughout schools.

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 have been in a few conflicts over editing in the past (most of which happened the better part of two years ago). Back then I was a bit of a hot-head about it, stating that my way was right and that's final. Now, two years later, I've learned a lot, and I know that just because I want it to be right, doesn't mean it IS right. So while I may have dealt with it poorly in the past, now I plan on dealing with it calmly and efficiently. The most recent conflict I was in involved video game articles and having them merged into single pages. I opposed this and voiced my opinion on it, but lost. Instead of fighting further, I merely edited the new articles that had been created and made them better by either type-editing them or adding more information, evidence to the progress I've made on this specific subject.

Optional questions from Darth Panda:

4. If consensus says a page should be deleted on AfD, in what situations would keep the article anyways? If consensus says a page should be kept on AfD, in what situations would delete the article anyways?

General comments

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

Links for Maverick Leonhart: Maverick Leonhart (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/Maverick Leonhart before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Oppose - Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose. You simply haven't been active enough over the past year (i.e. less than two hundred edits in the past 14 months is not acceptable). Also, your prize-article, Shinzo, doesn't contain a single inline citation. My vote is "oppose" for these two reasons. —Łittle Älien¹⁸² 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The candidate needs more experience in both admin and content-building areas. I'm also concerned that the candidate minunderstands what it means to be an admin, per the nomination statement. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (ec) You're obviously well-intentioned and have been here for a long time, but I don't believe you have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace to make me feel confident in your knowledge of policies and procedures. You only have 6 edits to the project space in the last calendar year and one of those was requesting rollback an hour ago. Obviously, requesting rollback isn't a bad thing, in fact, it's a good thing, but I'd feel more comfortable if you'd use rollback for awhile, edit more consistently, and demonstrate your knowledge of background workings via participating in the Wikipedia space and its related talk pages. Useight (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hi. I feel that you mean well, but you misunderstand the position of adminship. Also, your edits here could be ramped up in number for sure. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The start of the nomination statement indicates profound misunderstanding of the admin role. Townlake (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Scant experience. Suggest withdraw or closure. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.