User:GregJackP/Admin criteria

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators.

In order for me to support a candidate for administrator, they must, before evaluating any other factors, meet this one, single, criteria.

The candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status, or at least two articles to good article status. This is intended to look at their content creation ability, not their ability to review articles and make suggestions.

This shows that they understand that this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are written by content creators, and the supervisors and managers should be content creators. In order to create content, especially GA/FA content, an editor will show that they:

are familiar with the standards for articles (MOS, referencing, etc.),
know how to interact with others,
understand the true intent of WP:IAR, which is to bypass bureaucratic BS in order to create content

Non-content creator admins typically have no understanding of what is required to create content. Since they don't create it, they tend to rely on rigid application of rules. Some become Javert. Some just become WP:JERKS.

We don't ask non-pilots to supervise the Air Force, for non-police to supervise the cops, for non-businessmen to supervise businesses. We shouldn't ask non-content creators to supervise writers.

See User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content as of July 30, 2015, I completely endorse Ritchie333's position as stated at that time.

See also

		Wehwalt's Analogy on Content Creation
		Wehwalt:This isn't an attempt to build an ideal society. We are building an encyclopedia here and the reader does not give a flying duck about what goes on behind the scenes. We are constrained by the legal and social limits of 2015, but as I have often said, we are not here to sing Kumbaya but to build an encyclopedia and this is the shop floor. Do you think anyone who visits, say, St. Peter's, while admiring, say, the stonework, would think the authorities in the 12th century should have suspended the chief stone mason from work for saying something nasty, or think the person who judges between the stone mason and the guy carting away the rubble should be someone who has expressed a hostile attitude towards skilled workers?

and

		Quote of the week, back by popular demand
		GregJackP:The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators.[1]"

Stolen from where it was posted on User talk:Bishonen on Aug. 2, 2015.