Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs

Support = 26; Oppose = 0; Neutral = 0 - 100% Promoted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs

Links for MichaelMaggs: MichaelMaggs (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
His RfA

I asked Michael if I could nominate him for this a while back but circumstances have conspired to prevent me from doing so until now. I'd be delighted to see Giggy back with his rights (which looks likely) however the 'crats who are active on Commons are few again sadly hence this nomination.

Michael has been around on Commons for slightly longer than I have I think & has worked hard in many aspects of Commons. He is an active part of the community & someone I trust completely. The throwaway comment in his RfA that his day job is as a patent and trademark attorney has always suggested to me that we are fortunately to have someone who really does know quite a bit about aspects of the legal situation here.

I hope the community will be able to support this request for rights. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honoured to accept, Herby, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support and strongly as nominator, --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support no questions. Lycaon (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good Abigor talk 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminds me of Collard. Good record, seems to have his head where it should be. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. →Na ·gy 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I had been considering Michael for some time as well - glad to see Herby still beats me to a few things :) He has been one of the more level-headed administrators on Commons for some time, and certainly possesses the maturity and consistent activity levels I would want to see in a bureaucrat. All in all, an outstanding candidate. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Herby. Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes! -- Per the nomination. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, see above. --Leyo 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Foroa (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with sentiment expressed in the nom, and the comment by Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt Pruneau^talk 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DəstəkPer Herby and mike.--Mardetanha ^talk 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brynn (talk!) 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Mike.lifeguard. Jahiegel (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Patrícia ^msg 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Эlcobbola _talk 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Herby.--Paloma Walker (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as far as I can judge a good one. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, thanks for volunteering for the extra work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Do we need more Bureaucrats? --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only one. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that with admins and 'crats, the more, the merrier. Given that they are fit for the task of course. Patrícia ^msg 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acting as a bureaucrat, how would you interpret Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship) — should Gryffindor be desysoped based upon the outcome of the discussion? --Kjetil_r 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I fully understand the question, as Gryffindor has already been de-sysoped (see the log). If you are asking whether I think he should get the bit back, I will reserve judgement on that until I have seen the arguments presented at the proposed "RfC" - the equivalent on Commons would be a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. So far as I am aware, no-one has opened such a discussion yet. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the unclear question, I meant something like this: If the desysop discussion had recently ended, and there still had not been a decision about its outcome; would you consider it to be consensus for removing Gryffindor's admin buttons? --Kjetil_r 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be truthful, I don't have any more blinding insights on that than did the existing Bureaucrats: there are good arguments on both sides. Had I been a Bureaucrat at the time I would probably have agreed with Lar's proposal. I am pretty comfortable with the end result, with Gryffindor de-sysoped but with the door left open for the result to be reversed in the future should the community so agree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]