On 4/1/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@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.
Jay.