Final tally: (58/6/1); Ended Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:41:03 (UTC) closed by Avi
Father Goose ( talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Father Goose for an administrator. I would have done so some time ago, except that he needed to take a break earlier this year because of illness in the family. I think he is one of our most careful and painstaking editors, accurate, and productive. I would expect the same of him as an administrator. The reasons he wants the tools make sense, and I trust him to do what he says he'll do with them. I also trust him to not do what he says he won;t do, which is to take any administrative actions that are not in accordance with established policy. Take a look at his proposed template, {{ BLP unverified}}. His views and mine on many open issues are similar (although not identical), but I would nominate him equally if it were the opposite case. Some nominations are devoted to a lengthy praise of the candidate. His work, and the courtesy and precision of his language says it all by themselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
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:
Additional question from Looie496
Optional Questions by / MWOAP| Notify Me\
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Father Goose before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
{{
BLP unverified}}
, and I'm not finding anything in the contribution history that suggests to me that this editor would abuse or misuse the tools.
Paul Erik
(talk)
(contribs) 04:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replyFinal tally: (58/6/1); Ended Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:41:03 (UTC) closed by Avi
Father Goose ( talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Father Goose for an administrator. I would have done so some time ago, except that he needed to take a break earlier this year because of illness in the family. I think he is one of our most careful and painstaking editors, accurate, and productive. I would expect the same of him as an administrator. The reasons he wants the tools make sense, and I trust him to do what he says he'll do with them. I also trust him to not do what he says he won;t do, which is to take any administrative actions that are not in accordance with established policy. Take a look at his proposed template, {{ BLP unverified}}. His views and mine on many open issues are similar (although not identical), but I would nominate him equally if it were the opposite case. Some nominations are devoted to a lengthy praise of the candidate. His work, and the courtesy and precision of his language says it all by themselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
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:
Additional question from Looie496
Optional Questions by / MWOAP| Notify Me\
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Father Goose before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
{{
BLP unverified}}
, and I'm not finding anything in the contribution history that suggests to me that this editor would abuse or misuse the tools.
Paul Erik
(talk)
(contribs) 04:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
reply