Meta:Requests for adminship/Красный

Красный

Красный (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 07:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm Nikolai and I'm working in organizing some on-wiki and offline events in Central Asia and, ocasionally, Russia. I currently have translation admin rights here and on Commons, also a few autopatrolled and other not-so-important rights throughout different wikis I'm active in. In my work sometimes I face a situations when I need sysop rights, like, deleting redirects with mistakes (yeah, it happens when you create a bunch of pages), or moving incorrectly made translation (like uz-latin started at uz-cyrl page while you should use general uz instead and so on), so I need to bother Kaganer and it takes time and effort. So after a lot of thoughts (I literally had the request for rights page open for a month before that and translated the guidelines into Russian) I decided to apply. I'm tottally ok with some of the rights with no full adminship if the community thinks it suits me better, but I want to have the ability to move the translations and pages in general, to delete pages and, ocasionally, to protect main pages for the events organized in Central Asia. --Красный^{wanna talk?} 07:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose full sysop on the basis of lack of sysop anywhere and very little involvement in sysop matters on Meta, though I'd Support LA. //shb (t • c) 07:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per SHB, and Support only limited adminship. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 08:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for your requesting adminship is to primarily support your translationadmin work, and for that limited adminship is suitable. Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support support limited adminship--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support limited adminship per user's rationale. – Svārtava (t ɕ) 13:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support limited adminship, per above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full adminship, Support limited adminship --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support (without limitations). I'm well known this user by our wiki activity together for years now. He is an experienced, careful and cautious wiki-editor, not prone to political ventures and wiki wars. But "limited adminship" also look as best decision as start. Kaganer (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support limited adminship as it fits the candidate's needs. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support limited adminship only. aqurs 🍧 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support limited adminship for now.--A09|(pogovor) 19:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support For limited adminship. --V0lkanic (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for limited adminship, as no apparent issues on that end. EPIC (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support (only) for limited adminship. --TenWhile6 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Limited adminship as asked in the statement --Superpes15 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]