Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SQL

SQL's contributions using wannabe kate tools. Carlosguitar 07:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One year requirement
Further expansion on my comment about a one year requirement. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. We are editing a Wiki. A year's experience is simply more than can be required for nom's to apply for adminship. It does not take but a few months of active participation-- over 2,000 - 3000 edits to: 1) demonstrate the nom believes that the project is important. 2) To demonstrate the nom wants to help improve the project. 3) To learn enough about how the project works to not damage it by deleting encyclopedic content or blocking constructive editors. These are the most important, sysop-type duties of the admin. Historically, users have been given admin responsibilities after about three months experience and about 2000 edits. Generally speaking, most admins have done an outstanding job of using the tools. Balanced against the needs of a project that has grown much faster than the number of admins, the fact remains that more admins are needed than are created. It is to the project's benefit to grant adminship to the capable. Unless someone can show me a clear cut example of lack of understanding through faulty judgment or temperamental incompatibility through incivility or rashness, I cannot help but vote Support for this and other noms who have made constructive edits for around three months and about 3000 edits. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear. Pedro | Chat  09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I hadn't uploaded a chatlog (>_>) I'd have been an admin with four months of active editing. I can't believe that oppose vote. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) (Drought) 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)