User talk:Stifle/No featured articles

Once again, I agree with you. — Jun. 7, '06 [06:44] <freak|talk>

Pointless comment

It's probably totally pointless to raise this comment, but adminship grants special privileges for meta-modifying articles; that is, editing the circumstances that surround articles such as users, existence of pages, protection of pages and whatnot. Absolutely nothing to do with the quality of contributions to the page itself. Ergo, the FA-edness of contributions, the content and quality of editing, is relatively unimportant for the extra tasks an admin is capable of doing. Really, adminship should be passed along based on their ability to interpret and apply policy fairly and rationally, and their ability to navigate conflicts; the ultimate test being an AFD vote where they endorse the deletion of an article they really like but does not conform with policy.

Why am I writing this? No-one'll ever read it. WLU 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I just have. Yours is a good point. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I win! I also think it's a good point. WLU 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WLU: I don't think someone can be a good admin unless they have personal experience with the tribulations that content editors trying to build up the encyclopedia's quality have to deal with. Look at the Betacommand saga for example. He was not a stupid or evil person, but he was hopeless as an admin precisely because he had no experience with or interest in contributing to articles, so he did insane things because he was clueless about the effect they'd have on article quality and on how editors would react. Back when I was participating in RFA's, I considered 1FA to be a big plus (not a requirement) but the main thing I wanted to see on the article side was some level of content contribution to at least a dozen or so articles, plus good judgement in article talk pages about issues of content. 76.197.56.242 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]