Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Dominic

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Dominic. See current discussion or the archives index.

2011-10 admin

Dominic (talk • contribs) • activity • Global

We nominate Dominic for admin. Dominic has been part of Wikisource since October 2008. Although upstaged sometimes by his real-life advocacy of Wikisource at the National Archives, his on-wiki work coordinating and developing ways for new users (particularly those he brings in through NARA) are just as valuable. For example, he created a quick reference sheet for new users who may be unfamiliar with the Mediawiki software. While not all of his on-wiki work shows here because he's also involved on Commons in making works usable, the NARA WikiProject has added some very interesting works to our collection, and has been a good way to attract outside interest. He's a great technical editor with a good understanding of JS and the Mediawiki content—but he's unable to edit it because he's not an admin yet. Besides being deeply convinced of the value of Wikisource and committed to finding new and interesting ways to contribute, he is also an administrator on Wikipedia and Wiktionary. He is also frequently available and communicative in IRC.

Jointly signed by:

• --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• —Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance by nominee:

• Thanks to both of you. :-) All I'll say is that I have always been in love with Wikisource, and I think I grok the concept well. I may not have a ton of edits, but I think my track record here and elsewhere should be enough to demonstrate that I'm not going to break the wiki, and I won't use any admin tools in any area where I'm not experienced enough to know what I am doing yet. Dominic (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. — though I view being "frequently available and communicative in IRC" as a negative attribute, everything else mentioned worked to cancel that out for argument's sake. – George Orwell III (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support — and very welcome! --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - it was a pleasure working on you with NARA - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - When I looked at his WS edit count on SUL, I was extremely surprised at how low it was, but when you look at what Dominic is doing with those edits it leaves little doubt that WS grows as a project with each edit. There is not a single doubt in my mind that giving Dominic the tools is the right choice. Jeepday (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've known Dominic for some time in various capacities, and am impressed with the work he is doing here at Wikisource. I assume the comment above about him being available on IRC is a joke, but in case there is any doubt…drawing on my own experience…my involvement here is almost entirely due to the support I have received on IRC, from Dominic and others; without the real-time guidance, I would have gotten frustrated and moved on to other projects long ago. -Pete (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. Please use edit summaries more often. Some of your edits have no summary.--Jusjih (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support in that I do not think that any use of tools would be abused, and that the use of tools would be correct. I just don't know that there is a demonstration of need, but in this wiki the inclination has been not to go to intermediate phases, so comes down to why not. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'm thoroughly impressed by what he's done here so far. Insofar as he might find use for an admin bit I have no qualms with him having it. Prosody (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Hesperian 01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Appointed--BirgitteSB 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. :-) Dominic (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2012-11 confirmation

admin since November 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Dominic will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

• Support - no offense to the many I have missed these past several months! --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral—One administrative action in a year causes me to ask if the tools are needed? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support--Mpaa (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support—William Maury Morris II^Talk 12:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support so we make him work that sorry a*** harder :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support more edits then me! :P He is a very responsible editor, I have a lot of confidence in him for what that is worth. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral. Inactive here for more than 3 months.--Jusjih (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the next year. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - though as leader of the NARA Project I asked him on Wikipedia around Nov. 3 to stop by and give us an update. No response here or there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

2013-12 confirmation

admin since November 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Dominic will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

•  Support — Ineuw talk 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support — even though he landed the job I could easily kill him for. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support and I don't support killing Dominic  :-) --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Mpaa (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Solomon7968 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

2015-01 confirmation

admin since November 2011 (see previous discussions), currently active (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Dominic will be reconfirmed automatically unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger a vote of confidence with decision by simple majority.

•  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Albeit little besides a handful comments have come from this editor in the past 18 months. At least he does still pop in from time to time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral — Ineuw talk 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral - Dick Bos (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Only 5 contributions to en-ws in 2014. Is Dominic still aware of what's going on?
•  Support —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

2016-02 confirmation (unsuccessful)

The following discussion is closed:

Not confirmed

admin since November 2011 (see previous discussions), currently inactive (contributions · logs · count · crossactivity). Dominic will be removed automatically unless a simple majority of established users support continued access.

Most recent edit here 13 August 2014; continuing active on other projects e.g. Wikimedia Commons.

•  Oppose, unless this editor expresses a desire to keep the bit and resume activity here. BD2412 T 14:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for inactivity —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• pending @Dominic: Your thoughts would be appreciated. No edits in 2015, and 5 in 2014 doesn't sound like a connection or a need. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose—per our policy on inactive admins. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for inactivity --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral —C. F. 18:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for inactivity— Mpaa (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian, @Mpaa: This looks like we're now in the situation of a confidence vote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that we only proceed to a vote of confidence for active administrators i.e. those who are opposed despite remaining active. Inactive administrators are simply removed unless they receive majority support. Hesperian 07:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. I thought last month's one was a parallel situation, but didn't pick up on the distinction. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. As you've noted, I have gone in other directions in recent years, and am no longer able to be active here. I don't mind if you remove my adminship. Dominic (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose for inactivity. Farewell.--Jusjih (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Not confirmed. Hesperian 01:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal requested.[1] Hesperian 02:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.[2] Hesperian 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)