User:Vanished user 456745753784/1FA

The One Featured Article (1FA) criterion was the standard that Mailer diablo adopted as the standard for voting in Requests for adminship, between 21 May2006 and 11 June 2006. First started by Jguk, it states that "The candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status." Miborovsky is currently using a slightly modified version of this criterion as the yardstick to measure all RFA hopefuls with. With certain 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.

Confession, and my rationale
I would have failed this criterion before 7 May 2006. However, since November 2005 Wikipedia has come a long way and I feel new standards are needed. 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. I think Mailer diablo and Jguk have sufficiently explained why admins need to be able to write articles, why admins need maintenance tools if all they need to be is write articles, and that sort of questions, so it is unnecessary for me to repeat them here.

Exceptions
My exceptions are somewhat different from those laid out by Mailer diablo. Negative exceptions are: Positive exceptions are: Please note that correcting 3 typos or adding 5 internal links is NOT considered "help" or "significant contributions". Basically, I must be able to see from the first few pages of the article history that the RFA hopeful is the one doing much (if not most) of the work. Also, I will only look at featured articles, not lists or portals or pictures.
 * Subject of an open ARBCOM or RFC case
 * Prior use of sockpuppets, malicious codes, and vandalbots
 * Lack of basic communication skills (such as having 0 talk page edits)
 * Significant contributions to Good articles which show promise of FA status
 * Significant contributions to FACs on their way to becoming FAs
 * Significant contributions to China-related articles (yes I'm partial)

Am I being evil/insipid/prejudicial?
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.
 * -- User:Mailer diablo
 * As do I.