Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Red4tribe

+Administrator
I recognize the fact that I am still rather new to Wikibooks(although my knowledge has quickly improved), and chances are I won't be accepted now, but I figure I'll give it a shot anyways. I've been editing for 3 weeks, a little over 2 on my account. I have made many valuable contributions, especially on the Dutch Empire. More recently I have taken up to cleaning up after vandals, encouraging ip's who have made valuable contributions to join, and welcoming new members. I have also begun to vote in pages for deletion, featured pages nomination etc. The main reason I wish to become and Admin, is because there have been a few times where a vandal has caused a problem, and I have been unable to do anything about it. I would like to fill that spot, so they do not get a break. I understand if I am not accepted, but I would like to see a reason why if you believe I should not be an Admin. If I am to be accepted, I will do my best to improve Wikibooks. Red4tribe (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - I've looked through your edit history, and for only being here a few weeks, it's pretty impressive. Still, I'd like to wait a while before nominating, so that you can continue to learn about the Wikibooks community. Hoogli (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * . This user has nearly 1000 edits to his name, and all of them have been valuable. While there are a few areas where I feel like you could use a little more experience, i don't feel that any of them are so bad as to prevent you from becoming a new admin. Your work on Dutch Empire has been excellent, your work finding and reverting vandals has also been exemplary. Regardless of the outcome of this RFA, I would like to promote you to +rollbacker and +patroller ASAP, assuming there are no objections to that specifically. If people feel that you need more experience (and that's likely to be a concern), +rollbacker and +patroller are great ways to get it. Also, make sure you browse through some of the pages at WB:PAG, since they are important for admins. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you provided yourself the arguments and even seem to predict the outcome I will only restate the most obvious and historically what are taken as valid reasons not to grant the flag. You have proposed yourself for the flags, hence the most important part of your request is the reason why you requested the admin flag, as I see it the task that prompted you to need the tools is a very problematic one. Blocking users should only be done by admins with a great level of experience and as the last resort, it is a very time consuming and can lead to conflict and is a magnet for related problems and work. A block is the highest penalty a Wikibookian can be subjected to, in the hand of an inexperienced or time constricted admin the tool becomes very dangerous. We see also that you are relatively new here (5 May 2008) getting to understand the policies and guidelines is a must for any would be admin and the only clue the community has that you have a good knowledge of them is only by your time/edits on the community (outside of specific projects) and the level of engagement you have shown in discussing, and implementing them, there are many other bureaucratic tasks that can be performed to help the community that don't require the admin flag, you can try to help the community in that way, for now I will agree with you that it is to soon to give you the flag. Try helping the active admins in other ways this will also help them address your problems (if you report them) more expeditiously. Keep in mind that the requirements of administration will also eat away your time for doing the primary task that is providing content, the core of Wikibooks. If you indeed think you can best serve the community on admin tasks then request them later or wait for a overburden admin or another Wikibookian to nominate you. BTW, great work with the Dutch Empire, your contributions can also work against your more bureaucratic aspirations :).  --Panic (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Panic. Give it some more time and keep up the good work.  --AdRiley (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * for now. I would like to give you +rollbacker though. I'd like to wait to see some more patrolling before giving that bit though. I think your work since joining is great, but it's just too soon. Although you cited involvement in WB:VFD, I'd like to see more there (33 meta edits isn't that much), as well as on the various discussion boards. I think we should certainly revisit this in perhaps a month, because you are certainly headed in the right direction. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - Much too new, so new that I don't have enough confidence that you understand our community and policies here. Active users need to see you involved; we've had way too many content editors that become admins and almost immediately leave unfortunately. Give this time. -within focus 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - New and inexperienced. In addition to contributing to community discussions as has already been suggested, I think you should help with various maintenance tasks. Both participating in community discussions and helping with maintenance tasks will allow people to see how well you understand the Wikibooks community as well as demonstrate a need for the tools. --dark lama  23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

+Patroller and Rollbacker
This user applied for adminship above, an application that doesn't appear destined to pass because of issues over experience. Given his activity finding and fighting vandals, and his honest desire to help out around here (active helpers seem to be in short supply recently), I recommend he be given both +rollbacker and +patroller rights as a way for him to improve his vandal fighting and quickly gather more valuable experience. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I accept. Red4tribe (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment - Would you please confirm you've read WB:ROLL, WB:NPP and WB:RIGHTS? – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, I have read them all. Red4tribe (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Unequivocal support then. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support --AdRiley (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reece  (Talk)   (Contributions)  14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

+Administrator
I requested Admin access about a month ago, but it was declined because of lack of experience, however I did receive patroller and rollbacker access. Over the past month I have used both Patroller and Rollbacker access, and I believe I have patrolled something in the area of 250 pages. I have continued reverting edits by vandals, and giving them warnings. I have welcomed many new users, helping them find their way around, and I have also become more active in the wikibooks community. Although I still am a little new at this point, I believe I could use the Admin tools properly and overall, help the project.
 * - I'm not thrilled with all your patrols as you know, but they've been mostly fine. As to involvement in community areas, some of your comments at VFD seem like simply "me too!" which is ok sometimes, but perhaps here and here would be good places for something more. However, your work outside community discussion areas looks good, and I'm glad to see some good interaction with new users. As long as you continue to accept help from others I'm happy to have you as an admin here. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize I made a few mistakes page patroling, paticulary earlier, but I've fixed my problem there. Red4tribe (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A strong willingness to be active, a good contribution history, dedication, and a desire to learn are the most important factors here. Adminship is an opportunity to learn and to get more involved, it is not a badge we hand out once our editors attain perfection. When you make mistakes (it's not an "if", we all make mistakes), I only ask that you learn from them, and learn how to fix them yourself. I support this candidate unconditionally. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only mistakes I've seen have been errors on the side of being too nice. I'm convinced he will use the tools for good rather than for evil. --Jomegat (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to be passive on this and just not oppose it but I will state my support to you due the work you have done so far. I still think it is to early and you probably need more experience (within the project), but this is also the second time you request the tools for yourself and no real reason exists to block you, but this is a bit strange to me, it's like reading a strange adventure book where the hero doesn't have to be placed on an very awkward situation or be dragged screaming and kicking so it will save the world :). Well someone must do the administrative work, better yet if they have some pleasure doing it. --Panic (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked over Red4tribe's contributions and they look fine to me. Good luck Red4tribe (talk)! RobinH (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support - I have been out of town and away from Wikibooks for three very long weeks. This user appeared on the scene about a month before I left, and I was already impressed with his work. Because I've been gone, I've only seen about half of Red4tribe's work, but what I have seen has been of fantastic quality, and I see no reason not to support. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

-Administrator

 * Last contribution: 13 April 2009 (2); prior, 24 January 2009
 * Last logged activity: 13 April 2009 (1); prior, 24 January 2009

Per policy on inactivity. By the time this notice is posted for a full 30 days, user will have had no edits or logged actions in the past year. Email sent and talk page notice posted. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't contributed to any Wikimedia project at all since 13 April 2009 - missing in action it seems. QU TalkQu 20:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done on Meta. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)