Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship closed by administrative decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Mikegodwin

Promoted by Anthere as a Foundation decision[1] at 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) - I am nominating Mike Godwin to be an administrator in part because of his position as legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. As such, he should be able to use the admin tools for the legal good of the Project, such as protecting pages and WP:OFFICE related issues. As a normal Wikipedia contributor, Godwin has been a part of the project since May 2005. Because of his experience as well as position within WMF, it is assumed that he has knowlege of Wikipedian policies and procedures and will abide by them. wL<speak·check> 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. MikeGodwin 03:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I hope to be involved in as little admin work as possible, invoking admin powers only on those rare occasions when it seems prudent to do so as a legal matter. I generally prefer moral suasion to admin powers.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I corrected a quotation from the first issue of Detective Comics in which Batman appeared. It's easily my best contribution because it was a mistake that cried out to be corrected, I had the knowledge to correct it, and it remained corrected after I finished.
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've been in minor conflicts regarding editing. My general pattern has been to hash out the issue in the Discussion areas and not be overly emotionally invested in the outcome. I think that's my strategy going forward. See also my answer to 1. MikeGodwin 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Dear Mike, would you consider using the edit summary more often? I understand you are not familiar with all our conventions, and you don't have to, but the edit summaries can be rather important. Whenever you do some office action I believe it is good for it to be summarized in the edit summary and/or the talk page so that other people can understand why you did what you did (admittedly, you don't have to, your responsibilities are not to editors, but to Jimbo, but it would be nice, for the sake of the community). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oleg, I have been trying more recently to use the edit summary more often. I agree with your reasoning. MikeGodwin 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
5. How long have you been Wikimedia counsel for? And why only now do you need sysop privileges? --maxrspct ping me 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been general counsel for Wikimedia for three weeks. I'm not sure I follow the "only now" part of your question. Are you saying I should have applied the first day on the job? MikeGodwin 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Did you refuse an initial offer of automatic sysop privileges and then suggest the vote in order to acquire 'extra legitimacy'? -- maxrspct ping me 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't refuse any offer of automatic sysop privileges. It seemed likely from the first day I was hired (if not before) that I could have sysop privileges if I believed I needed them. But since one intrepid user asked me to formally apply, I thought, hey, why not? I believe I learn more about our culture every time I participate in one of the cultural processes, and this seems to me to be a central one. I'm not worried about my legitimacy, which I think is fine even if I never use any admin powers. MikeGodwin 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mikegodwin before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • May I ask what the point is with this RfA? Surely it comes with the job. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly seconded this sentiment. Can someone speedy promote? – Chacor 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I assume the thinking here is that we should retain the ability to say that every administrator attained consensus on RfA, rather than have an alternate procedure (however justifiable or hopefully non-controversial that would be in this case). Yes, it's probably not necessary, but it has at least a certain symbolic value, and frankly there are worse problems to worry about. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Process for the sake of process. Garion96 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Not really. It means the action of promoting the person can't be attacked on process grounds, as due process was properly followed. Orderinchaos 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    As I expressed below, this should not be here. Remember Danny's RfA. If the foundation needs Mike to have the bit, the foundation should direct it and not allow a situation where this RfA might fail and he gets the bit anyway. It would make trash of the process. -- Cecropia 15:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like Mike's comment that he does not intend to use his admin bit very much, but instead his moral suasion—if only more admins were like that, when appropriate! I also would point out that, upon reviewing his talk page, I think he has been rather civil. I admit I have not had time to examine his contributions. I think this process is rather silly, as Mike definitely needs the admin bit, being the Foundation lawyer, but since we are going through it, I would like to support his and WikiLeon's request, while noting what I have and have not had time to examine. --Iamunknown 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So I've seen this and been asked if he couldn't just have the admin bit granted to him in order to do whatever he needs to do. Well, obviously, yes; I think that should be clear to everyone that any staff who need particular technical capabilities for some reason or another may have them granted. But I do not understand what possesses people to get worked up over the RfA being here. It's a bit odd/misplaced; someone offered to nominate him, and he accepted, and it's a bit unorthodox but spending any mental energy getting upset about it is a waste. The process isn't sacred. Speedy close or speedy promote or let it run or whatever; from personal acquaintance I'd support him being an admin completely aside from him being the WMF attorney, because I believe he won't do anything unreasonable with the tools. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Speedy nothing! lets not whitewash hey. We either do it properly or NOT! -- maxrspct ping me 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is the sort of "getting worked up" I was talking about...) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The same as "This should be no big deal"? --maxrspct ping me 21:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. We seem to have a general consensus, say 90%, that this should be speedily closed, and he should get the admin bit. But the people expressing this opinion and agreeing with each other are voting Support and Oppose and Neutral! This is where the "this is not a vote" business needs to kick in, otherwise the distinction between the opinion and the vote becomes too clear. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

-90% and falling by the hour. Lets wait until 5th August please. -- maxrspct ping me 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Beat the nom Support I can't see why a member of the Foundation shouldn't have the tools. -Nard 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator. --wL<speak·check> 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Of course. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - he needs to be able to see deleted revisions at the very least. WjBscribe 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - yup. No issues here - Alison ☺ 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - necessary and appropriate per nom. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per Ryan in the discussion above. ViridaeTalk 13:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support ACO permissions for use in office work. He's our lawyer, he needs them. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - necessary and frankly, Mike is trustworthy, even if being an admin wasn't necessary. I would also urge the Arbitration Committee to consider granting Mike checkuser and oversight functions the role of Foundation Legal Counsel may require, should this RfA be successful and the Foundation not decide to create a separate account for Office and similar functions. Nick 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Speedy promote. Martinp23 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Speedy Support - it should come with the job - see also Nicks comment. Agathoclea 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support —Anas talk? 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support There's no need to get into a long and drawn out discussion over whether or not this RfA should exist. We give him the mop and we move on. Trusilver 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Peacent 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, because only HITLER himself would oppose giving our legal counsel the tools he needs to do his job! (sorry, couldn't resist =P) Krimpet 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support giving the legal council the admin bit, don't support this RfA. RfA is about evaluating a user to see if they can be trusted with the tools. I'm sorry but with just over 100 edits you really can't expect us to do that, the sysop bit for the legal council should be given by the wikimedia council. However, I'm not going to be a dick and go neutral or oppose because you obviously need the tools given your position, I just strongly disagree this is the right method for you to gain them. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Pointless ex officio, and per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. But now that it's up, let's get it over with and move on. Plus, very easy to check entire contribution histroy :). --barneca (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support, Speedy close per Ryan Postlethwaite. Given that you're the foundation counsel, and someone with WP:OFFICE power, opposers could prove that you're Hitler, and you'd still need the admin tools. And, given that you have 100 edits, we can't be expected to survey those edits and adequately tell whether or not you are Hitler. So, hmm, is there any Usenet meme I should mention in order to facilitate a speedy close to this discussion? Wait... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Mr. Godwin is, as legal counsel for the WMF, clearly deserving of the trust of the community. AnonEMouse beat me to the humor, however. Nihiltres(t.l) 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, Speedy close please -- Y not? 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Clearly needs the tools to carry out the work they do. I am happy to support. Orderinchaos 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    If he needs the tools to do the job, the foundation should have given them to him. Note this discussion. pschemp | talk 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Brad Patrick was promoted by order of Jimbo; Mr. Godwin should be promoted by the order of the Foundation. He does not have the contribution record normally necessary for promotion, in my view. I support because this must happen, but I suggest a promotion by fiat for high-ranking Foundation people in the future. This RfA is unfortunate (especially in light of candidate's minimal record here) and unneeded. Xoloz 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support per Xoloz. ElinorD (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - It's needed for him to do his job. Also, Gustafson and Pschemp seem to have accidentally put their entries under oppose instead of neutral. That's the only thing I can imagine, considering that the text of their opposes seem to clearly indicate that they don't actually oppose the candidate's receipt of tools. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Cute Chairboy. However, Mike is the Foundation lawyer, not the English Wikipedia lawyer. Is he requesting this on every other language Wikipedia? How will the other languages feel about it? If it fails, will he get the powers on all the 'pedias but en? My comments are in the oppose because acceptance of this nom was clearly not well thought out. Nor was the nom. pschemp | talk 16:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. I, Mailer Diablo, on this day of 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC), hereby approve this candidate to gain the tools needed to discharge his legal duties for this encyclopedia.
  26. T Rex | talk 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support-the-foundation-lawyer-that-most-definitely-needs-the-tools-pronto —« ANIMUM » 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support giving the foundation's appointed counsel whatever tools he needs to do the job. Oppose the sort of process-wanking that says this meaningless RfA is actually a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support, it's a job requirement. I appreciate that we have this RfA. Sandstein 17:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support everyone else has said why. Acalamari 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support This guy needs the tools. Simple as that. Captain panda 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Speedy close I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be evaluating. Are we evaluating if he should be an admin based off his track record as a wikipedian? Are we asking to endorse whether or not the Foundation Attorney should automatically be an admin at en-wiki? I mean, Haukur below makes an excellent point for one of these scenarios, Cecropia also raises some really valid concerns. I'll just put my speedy close request remarks in the support section and hope that makes everyone happy. --JayHenry 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry. There is no precedent for a bureaucrat to jump the process by promoting nor to remove as invalid. This should be an administrative issue and it is up to the candidate whether he wants to let this stand and accept the results either way or to withdraw and make what should be a reasonable extra-RfA request to Wikimedia. -- Cecropia 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, okay. I basically agree with Seraphimblade below, but I'll leave my comment in the support section. I really wish this not have been taken to RfA in the first place. --JayHenry 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Beg pardon, Cecropia, there are plenty of precedents for removing RFAs from people with 100 edits as invalid. In fact, in my year and a half here, I've never seen a nomination of someone with that few edits that wasn't removed as invalid. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per nom. Politics rule 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I would like to note that even the oppose votes are saying they support him having admin ability in acts performed as wikimedia's lawyer. His comments and low edit count indicate that will be how he uses it. As for "wasting our time", you choose to edit this page. No one is making you. You waste your own time by editing this page if you feel editing this page is a waste of time. WAS 4.250 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support... and chuckle at the whole idea of going through RfA. Perhaps Mike wants to know just how absurd Wikipedia process can become. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time. Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. But I don't think Mike should have to go through this process. (And separately, hi, Mike!) THF 20:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Again this is unnessary, but that isn't a reason to oppose someone, he does need the tools more than most people. Jaranda wat's sup 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support ex officio, but think this is process for process sake. However, I am not willing to oppose, because I believe that he truly does need the tools. - Philippe | Talk 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Good candidate, and a foundation employee. No reason not to, and they won't vandalize, or they could lose their job  :-) A great insurance policy against vandalism. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Confused Support I agree the user needs the tools, but is an Rfa really necessary in this case? Jmlk17 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Completely unnecessary nom. Mr. Godwin needs the tools, indeed, he must have them. So why on Earth is he asking the community when he should just ask a board member or steward (who could also give him other powers outside of the ability of bureaucrats). If he wins, whatever, if he loses, he can get the tools anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — I'm not seeing the need for you to be sysoped, to be honest. You've not really contributed here either. Matthew 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Matthew, your rationale is one of the most absurd I've ever seen. This guy is the Foundation Laywer. He most definitely needs the tools. —« ANIMUM » 17:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, a *Foundation Lawyer*? Well, we better go assign his Wiki God status ASAP! Uhm... no, still not seeing the need. If/when he needs a sysop bit assigning he can ask she who must not be named or ring Jimbo or he could always send a message to IRC! Matthew 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, the *Wiki God Status*? He really needs that! Jimbo might have his thunder stolen! </sarcasm>. Matthew, if you actually looked at the context before opposing every d**n RfA, you may see where I'm coming from. He needs the tools to do his job. —« ANIMUM » 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    "He needs the tools to do his job": Please demonstrate to me how, 'k? As it stands this user wishes to be a Wikipedia administrator, not a foundation administrator. I'm not seeing how he needs the "tools" to do his job. Why hasn't he been stewardised, anyway? As I'm sure Mr Godwin need them at every other WMF wiki, right? Matthew 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose- this is nearly as bad as a certain admin who could have asked for the tools back yet posted an RFA instead. Process for the sake of process is silly and wasteful. He works for the foundation, they can do whatever they need to and creating extra drama here unnecessarily is stupid. pschemp | talk 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    As I understand it, members of the community wanted to nominate Mike this way and he accepted. I don't believe he proposed this. -Nard 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't say he did. I can read the nomination. The circumstance is the same though. Unneccessary and wasting community time. Especially because if he doesn't pass, he'll get the tools anyway...so what's the point? People need to be writing an encyclopedia, not proposing silly things that are taking time away from our aims. pschemp | talk 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, getting angry that is certainly one possible response. Another is to notice that Mr. Godwin has a certain reason for notability of his own and take the opportunity to make jokes, try to lighten the mood instead of darkening it. I, personally, think the second is more useful ... and more fun. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nice of you to interpret my response as anger though you seem to be confusing anger with logic. Here's my proposal. If mikegodwin agrees never to use admin tools should this fail, I'll take it seriously. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time because he'll have access to the tools anyway. You may want to see Cecropia's comment here. pschemp | talk 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    So your interest is to essentially dismiss him as the foundation's legal counsel if the RfA fails? Since he needs admin access to do his job, that's the end result of your bargaining chip, and is absurd. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Who's talking about dismissing him as counsel? If he needs the tools for Foundation work, this is the wrong place to ask for them. If this fails, do you propose he should not have the tools? Or do you want the Bureaucrats to do another "Danny"? -- Cecropia 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm criticizing an extraordinarily poorly thought out rationale to oppose. Let's say that this RfA fails, and the board appoints him the admin bit later anyways. Suddenly, a whole huge casserole of drama is created by people saying 'But his RfA FAILED!' There's no reasonable negative outcome to this, because he IS the counsel for the Foundation, so he's gonna get the bit. This was a silly RfA to make, but it's the cards that have been dealt, so it logically must finish w/ a support. Someone like pschemp who knows better and can see that opposes just create drama aren't acting in a manner consistent with their experience with the project, and it's a shame. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I'd much prefer it end with people at the Foundation getting a clue that we don't need or want an RFA to be run every time they hire someone. It's the willingness to run these silly RFAs that creates the drama. Dragons flight 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Also, this is a classic example of disrupting the project to make a point, and of all people, you should know better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    It occurs to me, Chairboy, that one could argue this nomination is pretty pointy and disruptive too. Risker 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. What's that all about? If the Foundation means to give him the buttons whatever we say then just go ahead and do it. If they mean to honestly ask us if he should have the tools at this point then, sure, I'll give my opinion. I think Mike might be more effective as legal-counsel-admin if he first gets a bit more experience under his belt as an ordinary editor. Add another 100 or 200 edits of experience and I'll support. Haukur 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Qualified oppose. I support Mike having the admin tools (and no, I didn't accidentally place my !vote in the wrong section), because, quite simply, he must have them to do his job. However, as he does not have enough experience for me to yet be comfortable seeing him use those tools in the ways a regular admin does, I believe he should be given them with the understanding that they are to only be used to assist him in his official capacity, and not to simply act as a regular admin. (It seems that's his stated intent anyway, and if I understand him correctly then we're in agreement anyway, but he doesn't have enough experience here that I'd have confidence in him deciding regular blocks/unblocks, closing AfDs, deciding on speedies, or using the tools to do anything but help with necessary office actions.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. --John 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - In a way I can see how it looks silly him being wikipedia counsel but without sysop privileges. But.. 50 edits in nearly three years? Not active enough. I can't really see how being a renowned web lawyer makes him essential enough for adminship unless he regularly edits wikipedia articles as part of his work.. which i doubt from amount of edits. What about conflicts of interest? Is anyone going to cross this guy? will he scare folk off from editing pages? I need more persuading. -- maxrspct ping me 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I just want to point out that I've made far more than 50 or 100 edits. I've done the great majority of edits anonymously, because I have long been an advocate of the positive aspects of anonymity. Necessarily, my anonymous edits don't add to my reputational equity, and that's fine. But I don't want to give any of you the impression that I've been an inactive participant -- mostly I've signed edits where I thought it was necessary to indicate my possible bias (as when the edits involved "Godwin's Law"). MikeGodwin 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    A note, he's been hired on as the chief counsel of the Wikimedia foundation. As such, he needs access to deleted revisions, the ability to protect and delete pages, and so on. While do this via an RfA is silly, that's the bag we've been handed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    He could be given that 'deleted page' tool (with supervision) without the rest of it. --maxrspct ping me 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    What tool is this you speak of ? 172.214.105.244 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Your comment highlights the foolishness of this RfA being here, Chairboy. You seem to be saying he has to have the bit because of his work so we have to give it to him. That's called a rubber stamp. That's not what RfA is for. If he's turned down here, he won't be allowed the tools by Wikimedia if he needs them? -- Cecropia 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Inappropriate venue. If the Foundation wants to make you an admin, steward, or grand poohbah, then they should do so. Aside from that, this community has essentially no basis for judging your qualifications or experience (~100 edits?). So, let the Foundation do what needs to be done rather than having this community fudge things for a candidate who is obviously unqualified by any normal standard. This decision simply shouldn't be made at RFA. Dragons flight 19:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - i wish people would stop trying to graciously wave the subject away. It is here ..in our hands. 'Don't look a gift horse in the mouth' is a saying that springs to mind. --maxrspct ping me 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. This editor would never be given the slightest consideration as an admin if not for his role as WMF legal counsel. Look at his edits - and how many of them are to the articles about Godwin's Law, named after him, and the article about him. His administrative actions will not be subject to the scrutiny that any other admin can reasonably expect - threads on AN/I will automatically be dismissed as "Mike doing Office stuff" even if there is no evidence that is the case. I believe that WMF legal counsel should be automatically granted the software tools required for him to carry out his responsibilities; however, the Foundation as his employer is responsible for giving him those tools. We do not employ Mike Godwin directly or indirectly, and should not be permitting the Foundation to abdicate its responsibility as an employer. Risker 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Afterthought - if he is already acting as WMF legal counsel, why does he not already have these tools - across as many projects as necessary - assigned to him automatically as part of his job? Risker 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
  10. Opposed for now, suggests withdrawal I opposed due to the answers given by the applicant. If those answers were given by anyone else, there would be snowball opposition. If the applicant believes his official duties require administrator privileges, he should explain why he needs them. He makes no attempt to explain it. Instead, he writes simply "I accept" and some cursory answers to questions. However, he can attempt to fix this problem.
    Another consideration would be that the Foundation could poke itself in the eye if the RFA fails. His standing as legal counsel who failed RFA would not be good. If he were promoted by decree, then the record would show that he failed RFA but was promoted anyway.
    Furthermore, if legal counsel needs access to information, he may always request it from his client, the Wikipedia Foundation. There is a danger that legal counsel could become so enmeshed with the wikipedia project that he will blur the lines between legal representation and being the client himself. Almost everyone knows the old legal saying: "He who represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer." Archtrain 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, per answer to question 1. If you wish to have an sysop bit to deal with official foundation matters, request it from the foundation. On the other hand, if you wish to be an admin, and perform admin tasks such as speedy deletion, AfD closing, ect, then you need an RfA. This does not seem to be your intention, so I oppose on that ground. I don't foresee any problems with the foundation giving you a sysop bit, however, I don't believe you have the experience to be an acting administrator. Prodego talk 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per Jeffrey and Pschemp. I mean really, if this guy needs the tools, then Jimbo or someone should just give them to him. Going through the normal course of RfA and then supporting based on the notion of "Screw all the criteria we give every other candidate, this guy's the lawyer" is absurd at the very least. I fail to see how being an employee of the foundation should be taken into consideration... on an RfA? Come on now, Jimbo and Mike are no more than a phone call/E-mail away. Just ask him for the bit if you need it, not us. Pilotguy 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Process for the sake of process just isn't right. If he actually needs the tools, he pretty much already has them. I don't like the idea of fully giving them to him (the case in this RfA). Giggy UCP 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Since you are doing this instead of just getting the Foundation to sysop you, I must assume that they don't think you should be a sysop just because you're the legal counsel, or you think that you should be able to pass a regular RfA to get adminship. Thus, I must oppose for lack of experience, like I would for anyone else. -Amarkov moo! 23:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Support giving the tools because it is necessary as the foundation's legal counselor that he has them. Pointless to have a RFA for that. Garion96 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Mr Godwin, its not necessary to ask for approval from the general wikipedia community since you are part of the foundation it should be handed to you in a bread basket. I ask for a speedy sysop. 103 edits you made is pointless here..--Cometstyles 13:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Using the tools to perform your duties as legal counsel is one thing, and I approve of that fully. But until I see a demonstration of your judgment I cannot support giving you the type of discretion in non-legal matters admins are trusted with. Until(1 == 2) 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. I have respectfully asked the candidate to remove this RfA and ask the foundation to have a steward or developer set the bit. Remember Danny's RfA. If this stands and doesn't reach consensus, it will have to be removed without promotion, and where would that leave us? Pro forma requests for adminship should not be here. -- Cecropia 15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Cecropia. We are supposed to be working on an encyclopedia here. If you need some buttons for a purely technical reason as determined by the foundation just have them. Why are you using this process ? It's just a bit of software for goodness sake. Pedro |  Chat  18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per everyone in Neutral and Oppose section --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I'll switch to support, if necessary, to pass this, since I think the candidate should get the bit; but Cecropia is right -- this should not be done via RfA. Mike Christie (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I cannot see why the Judge should need the keys to the Janitors cupboard. My main reason for not supporting/opposing is that there is far too little for me to make any decision upon; I strongly assume there is no reason to suspect they would be abused, but I cannot judge whether they will be used appropriately with so little experience. LessHeard vanU 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Anthere

In my opinion, this RFA does not really make sense. We all perfectly know that Mike does not have sufficient knowledge of the community rules and policies to be granted admin access merely based on his activity as an editor. Most of you do not even know him, so how could you fairly support him ? If he were losing his job in two months, would he stay admin ? Probably not, he would go through a RFA again, just as Danny did when he stopped working for the Foundation.

The one reason why he could get access to admin tools is that it will possibly simplify his job as legal counsel. The funny thing is that he is the legal counsel of the entire Foundation, so will have to figure out good solutions for projects in all languages. I doubt communities would grant him admin access in arabic or chinese, simply because he would not be able to find his way around :-) In these cases, he will need to rely on trusted individuals to do the job for him. In my view, in the future, it should be the same on the english wikipedia. He will recommend a course of action, and someone will implement his recommendation. For now, it seems MUCH simpler to just give him sysop tools on all projects in a language he understands. It will gain everyone's time. But that's a Foundation decision. Not a community one. It should not be done by RFA.

I made him sysop on english wikipedia, though meta interface. Why on meta ? First because I think I am not bureaucrat here :-) Second to make it clear it is a Foundation decision. You may close the RFA :-)

cheers

Anthere

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.