User:Stifle/No featured articles

Some people have decided that basing their comments on requests for adminship on whether the candidate has brought at least one article up to featured status. I find this incredibly insipid. I'm an admin, and I have no featured articles under my belt. Frankly, I couldn't care less.^[1]

I don't appreciate the implication in the essays extrapolating this idea that anyone who hasn't brought an article up to featured article status isn't a "real" editor. That's just insulting. I'm a real editor, dammit, and I don't appreciate any implication otherwise. Note that that's not say that featured articles are not valuable. They are, very much so, and those who have brought articles up to featured status should be proud. However, this has little to nothing to do with adminship, and that those who don't can be, and are, excellent contributors to the encyclopedia. Granted, the featured article process may grant someone many of the qualities needed for being an admin, and having brought an article up to featured status is certainly a good basis for support, but not opposition.^[2]

So, let me just say: Anyone who opposes a candidate on a request for adminship because they have not brought an article up to featured status should get some perspective, and their comment ignored.

Footnotes

^ It's entirely possible that my opposition to this criterion is based on a subconscious jealousy of those who have created featured articles, or an equally subconscious desire to have done that myself.
^ This section was clarified after comments on the talk page.

This essay was written by User:Sean Black and is licensed under the GFDL. User:Stifle fully endorses it.

[1] It's entirely possible that my opposition to this criterion is based on a subconscious jealousy of those who have created featured articles, or an equally subconscious desire to have done that myself.

[2] This section was clarified after comments on the talk page.

[1]

[2]