Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2)

 Support = 21;  Oppose = 1;  Neutral = 3 - 95% Result. Successful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs

Vote

Links for candidate: MichaelMaggs (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

• Previous RfB: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs
• Previous RfA: Commons:Requests and votes/MichaelMaggs

Nominator's statement: MichaelMaggs is an ex-bureaucrat who has recently returned to Commons after a long break. He was and is still in good standing with the community. His admin bit was restored a month ago, and he has taken the role up actively. He is also interested in returning to work as a bureaucrat, but because of the length of the break we thought it best to go through an RfB. As far as I'm concerned, he's got all the experience and trust required. I'm also not worried that he's been left behind - the role of Bureaucrat doesn't change very fast! 99of9 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The candidate has accepted this nomination.

Yes, confirmed. Thanks very much for the re-nom! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nom. --99of9 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Abstain I don't know him; as I'm not so older here. JKadavoor Jee 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support nom'd by me last time and I've never had any cause to regret that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, per the prior discussions linked above. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, do not expect problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support of course. Lycaon 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Jkadavoor, but judged by the other votes he'll probably be a good bureaucrat again. Trijnstel_talk 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  PS. The role of a bureaucrat may not change fast, but soon (from August 2013) they'll not be able to rename accounts anymore, see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement.

•  Oppose - was Bureaucrat, long time away, recently a Comeback - why so fast again Bureaucrat? And - why we need more? Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, if WMF legal decides that we can host an image of the FOP Academy Awards we have in the UK and he gets a decent picture of one to replace the fair use one we have at en:wp. Kidding aside, he is working on our copyright issues at commons. Being a crat, his decisions on copyright may carry more weight than others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  This is surprising. I haven't been aware that bureaucrats are here to make decisions on copyright issues—and even more surprisingly, I had no idea that their opinion has more weight than other people's. odder (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support--KTo288 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Jkadavoor and Trijnstel. --Alan ^(talk) 01:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Still a little doubt. Neutral for now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)  Support trusted user--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - I trust 99of9's and Herby's judgment here. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --cyrfaw (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support My impression of Michael is very, very good. I perceive him as trustworthy, mellow, level-headed, mature, with very good judgement. He is easy to work with, respected, balanced and hard working. --Slaunger (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 20:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support a reliable and competent user --High Contrast (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Fully trust this user. And yes there is more bureaucrat work than you might think, Marcus. --Dschwen (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Certainly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Taivo (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question Looking at your logs, it seems that you have mainly used your former bureaucrat status for renaming users: 20 renamed accounts, 1 sysop flag and 5 bot flag. Are you aware that your main task (renaming accounts) will be handed over to the stewards in August? Knowing that you soon won't be able to rename accounts, do you still feel that you need to be a bureaucrat? Sorry if I'm asking something unnecessary; I wasn't active on Commons when you got your bureaucrat flag, and neither the RfA nor previous RfB tell why you needed it. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we need a trusted and not too small group of crats to handle cases that admins can't settle and are indeed involved in themselves at times. Michael surely has my full support when it comes to trustworthiness, mellowness and levelheadedness.  B.p. 06:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, thanks for the question. Yes, I am aware of the forthcoming changes on renaming, but that will not significantly alter my workload nor that of any crat on Commons. Apart perhaps from EugeneZelenko, who has historically tackled much of the renaming and issuance of bot flags, using the technical tools represents only a very tiny proportion of the work the crats do. Much more relates not to the use of any formal powers but to issues where the the crat is trusted to act on behalf of the community, such as exercising judgement in closing user discussions, closing RFAs, and providing a leading and guiding role particularly in areas where we have conflicts between admins: see Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role. Crats also have access to the Bureaucrats' mailing list which I recall being used at least twice during my time to notify the crats of some potential issues of personal disclosure, thereby allowing us to keep an eye out for anything untoward. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I was only able to see how you have used the tools associated with the bureaucrat flag but not how you have acted in discussions as the discussions are hidden amongst 20,000 other contributions. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)