Meta:Requests for oversight/Mike.lifeguard

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Mike.lifeguard

I guess I should return the favour. When this came up a few days ago (in part as a result of an oversight I did, and some discussion among stewards and others, and then on Babel) Mike was one of the people I immediately thought of for this role. I enjoy working with him as a fellow CU and trust him implicitly in that role, and think he's eminently suited to this task as well. He's been showing his mettle in a variety of roles as time goes on:

• English Wikibooks - Admin, 'crat (withdrawn), 'crat, CU
• Commons - Admin
• Meta - Admin
• OTRS - volunteer

and I think he can handle this additional duty with finesse and aplomb. I hope you'll support him!

Thanks Lar. If the community trusts me, I'm happy to serve in this role.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support - as nominator ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose I'm sorry, while I trust Mike, he's been an admin for just over 2 months. I'd rather this task went to more seasoned users. Majorly ^talk 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) That was a bad reason to oppose, there's no reason why a newer person can't do the job. Support Majorly ^talk 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Trusted user and already familiar with this sort of sensitive work. Kylu 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support & strongly. Mike is someone who has grown tremendously in stature & ability in the time I have known him. Highly capable & very sensitive. Just the requirements for Oversight. He is very active here. There are few Wikimedian I would trust more. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy.  07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Although he doesn't have experiences with oversighting, Mike is very reliable and always calming, which makes him a good candidate for this job. --Thogo (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I trust Mike with these tools and believe he is suited with these tools. --Kanonkas 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Mike has my trust, and he should fill out the role well here. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Mike has my 105% trust. —Giggy 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. samþykkt, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Trusted and hard worker. FloNight 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
15. No way or reason to oppose — VasilievV ² 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support I trust him. --Kiensvay 07:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support A very involved contributor without any negative issue. --Millosh 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Dedicated user with appropriate level of trust. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, per MBisanz. Cirt 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support sure --FiliP × 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Trustworthy. NonvocalScream 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support --Marbot 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I changed my vote because I just realisted with a little help that he is a checkuser on enwikibooks.
23. Support Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support most definitely. WBOSITG 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Maxim_(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
27. DarkoNeko 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta. WjBscribe 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Would like to have more trust. Emesee 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Would you mind explaining why you do not trust me to perform this function?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose My concerns will be made known to the candidate privately only, upon request. NonvocalScream 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose --Marbot 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) neither steward nor checkuser

[edit] Neutral