User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay by an editor, and does not reflect the opinons of the entire community. This is not an actual policy or guideline. For a general viewpoint, see Wikipedia:One Featured Article. |
- "I am, first and foremost, an editor." - Rune Welsh
The One Featured Article (1FA) criterion was the standard that Mailer Diablo adopted as the absolute standard for voting in Requests for Adminship, between 21 May 2006 and 11 June 2006. First started by User:Jguk, it states that "The candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status." With exceptions as laid out below, support will be automatically given to any editor's application who fulfills this criterion. No minimum edit count or time is additionally required.
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
Wikipedia is essentially an encyclopedia, and should be managed by editors who have demonstrated exemplary skills in keeping it as such. By meeting this criterion, the editor has shown his/her ability of:
- Understanding what is an encyclopaedia
- Making significant contributions to the Wikipedia namespace
- Liaising and collaborating constructively with other Wikipedians
- Perseverance under criticisms and stress (FACs can be particularly brutal)
- Knowing how articles should be written, as set out in the FA criteria
- Knowledge in making Wikipedia a more credible source of information
...And finally, to force myself to look through your contributions in general, which I previously have not. =P
-
- Addendum : As Mib puts my exact sentiments into brevity that I could not express well in words - "Despite improved codes and new vandal-fighting and automation tools which make maintenance easier (and theoretically giving us more time to write articles), the percentage of featured articles has been gradually shrinking. Less than 1% of Wikipedia articles are featured, and the number of featured articles is a good reflection of overall quality of the encyclopedia."
[edit] Exceptions
The negative exception, which earns an opposition to your adminship despite fulfilling the criteria, is as of follows :
- Failure of civility, in particular personal attacks
- Edit-warring with other editors, in particular breaching the 3 Revert Rule
- Subject of an open Requests for Comment, or Arbitration
The positive exception, which earns a neutral (in rare cases, support) vote to your adminship despite not fulfilling the criteria, is as of follows :
- Active participation in process (e.g. deletion)
- Significant contribution to recent changes patrolling
- Exceptional service to the welfare of Wikipedians (e.g. Esperanza)
[edit] Notes
- Articles that are already featured are generally not considered.
- Featured list(s), Featured portal(s) as a substitute is accepted, but usually not pictures (which may be more for Commons!)
- If you believe that I have opposed you in error, and have contributed significantly in bringing an article to featured status, do leave a message on my talkpage with an explanation, and I will be more than happy to reconsider.
- Any oppose based on this criterion by me after July 2006 is simply meant to point out and illustrate the need for more involvement in article writing and editor-related matters.
[edit] Odd vote?
Please do not take it personally I have opposed you under this criterion, especially if it turns out to be that odd vote in the RfA. This is done in good faith, and Mailer Diablo wishes all the best to all RfA candidates regardless of outcome.
[edit] Other essays
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards
- User:Jguk/admin criterion
- Wikipedia:Campaign for less bull more writing
- User:Miborovsky/1FA
- User:Digitalme/*FA
- User:Tawker/Any Featured Article
- User:Sean_Black/No_featured_articles
- User:A Man In Black/No featured articles
