jayjg wrote:
On 4/1/06, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The two year version is more likely to know why we are where we are
>>> now. Admins who don't know this tend to cause interesting problems.
>>> This can also be the case with returning admins. There are other
>>> differences that are also likely to exist.
>>>
>>>
>> Could a one month editor not be a good admin? If they could, then why
>> do we have such prejudice against the idea?
>>
> A one-month editor could be a good admin. What a minimum time rule
> really tests is patience. Is he willing to stick around when things
get
tedious.
If he goes away when he doesn't get made a sysop right away
maybe he wasn't meant to be one.
It tests more than patience. A one-month editor might be a good admin,
or
might not. It's really hard to tell. Aside
from the issue mentioned
before
(people who are trying to get sockpuppet accounts
to admin status), how
do
we know how the person will perform under
pressure? Does he really know
the
policies? It's really hard to get to know
anything about an editor
after
just one month, and it's not like we're
suffering from a lack of admins
- we
have almost 900.
So, why do we still have backlogs?