Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Danny

2006-05 admin
Danny has been among the most active contributors on Wikisource over the past few months, having made over 1600 contributions according to Interiot's tool. His contributions have been varied as well as numerous; proofreading text for The New Student's Reference Work WikiProject, aiding the standardisation of the Bible, uploading texts, and fighting vandalism. He's well in touch with other communities, and is among the earlier and most trusted editors in the Wikimedia Foundation. As a steward, he's currently a temporary administrator here. With his contributions to Wikisource, and his experience with and on other Foundation projects, I think he's more than qualified and trusted enough to be granted permanent adminship here.Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept and am glad to be part of this project. Danny 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as the nominator, of course. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per the nomination. — {admin} Pathoschild 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom--Shanel 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - illy 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Apwoolrich 06:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - also note that he has been a major contributor to Hebrew Wikisource as well. Dovi 09:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but has he accepted the nomination yet?--Jusjih 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. I still support him. I have asked because I have experienced declined nominations after many supporting votes at Chinese Wikipedia.--Jusjih 18:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --BirgitteSB 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Appointed. (Well, in spirit--he's already got the rights.)—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2007-05 confirmation

 * Support continued adminship. — {admin} Pathoschild 04:57:48, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support continued adminship. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support continued adminship.--Birgitte SB  17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support continued adminship.--Jusjih 01:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. - Politicaljunkie 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Dovi 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. — {admin} Pathoschild 21:54:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2008-06 confirmation

 * He hasn't been active in the last two months, it seems... I'm not sure. Maybe leave him a note and see if he intends to hang around. giggy (O) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We usually consider activity within the last six months as "active". Remember this is annual process.--Birgitte SB  15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Long term contributor. Thank you for your work. No reason to remove the admin tools, short periods of inactivity are fine. FloNight 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out that he hasn't used "block" since 2006, and has only deleted his own pages (rather than vandalism) in the past year, judging by his contribs. I'm sure he could re-apply for admin if he felt it were necessary in the future. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Has been around for a while, activity might fluctuate; while I agree with giggy in that his activity has waned, we should allow him more time before we strip him of his rights in my opinion.  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support continued adminship. Just a few (recent) months of inactivity over the course of the entire last year should not be enough to be declared inactive nor should entail a loss of sysop privileges.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an annual review so we should consider the situation now. Otherwise, any admin could delay their annual review by ceasing to edit a few weeks before the review is due.  Looking at Danny over the whole year, I see no reason to worry.  On WQ, we mark an admin as inactive after three months, so after that I'd start to worry.-- Poetlister  20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support continued adminship. No sign of abuse and I do not want to patrol edits of one of our  top contributors, as Danny is still quite active! John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I also support. giggy (O) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A long-term, high quality contributor who should have access to admin tools if and when he needs them. Danny has always been one of the finest contributors to Wikisource. Dovi 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Broad spectrum of small but important edits.--GrafZahl (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with FloNight and John Vandenberg. Stratford490 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Maxim 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Per above as well. SQL Query me!  07:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

2009-07 confirmation (failed)

 * Desysop. zero activity since reconfirmation last year. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Desysop; inactivity. --Spangineerwp (háblame)  14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Desysop as per policy for inactivity. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. One of our best contributors, in my opinion, but now unfortunately inactive. Would gladly support continued adminship following future activity. Jude (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree, however, as stated previously, the policy is specific, and could do with the ability for a "get out of jail free" clause. billinghurst (talk)


 * de-mop as inactive, w/thanks and an open-door. Jack Merridew 10:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * what Jack said. Hesperian 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[#Danny.40enwikisource Removed]. — Pathoschild 14:30:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)