User:Monsieur Crow/What Makes An Admin

This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more SmashWiki contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion.

“	Madness and genius are separated only by degrees of success	”
—Magic: The Gathering card - "Inspiration"

So, you think you got what it takes to go for the promised land and become an administrator? Before you start running into the fray, try reading this essay, and see if you actually have the skillset before you end up wasting everyone's time, including, or perhaps especially, your own. You may learn a few things you had never considered before, in terms of what adminship is, what goes into an RfA, and what goes into a vote for an RfA, as well as why some of the arguments you may try to use aren't worth much on their own.

To preface this essay, I am not an admin, and despite the requests of at least ten different users, four of whom were admins, I don't think I'll ever try to run for the position. Regardless, I've spent over ten years on SmashWiki, and I have seen possibly hundreds of adminship events since 2008; in my time here, I have seen a number of trends that separate good admins from bad admins, from looking at successful RfAs, failed RfAs, admins that perfectly adapted to their new role, and admins that were, or are, badly over-matched for their job. In any case, I hope that this essay can help you take into account what is expected of admins and admin candidates.

NOTE: I will name-drop a number of different users in this essay, both admins and non-admins. If by happen-stance you encounter your own name here and find that I have written incorrect information, misremembered an event, or are otherwise offended by your presence, simply talk to me in a mature manner, and we can see if we can work something out. Attempting to directly remove information from this page without consulting me will revoke your right to argue for its removal.

Some considerations for adminship

Before we get into what makes good and bad admins, there are a few important principles that need to be brought up in regards to what an RfA actually entails. If you're going to apply for adminship, there are a few basic guidelines that may not seem immediately obvious.

The purpose of an RfA

“	But I do know one thing: I am the goddamn manager, and I am going to run this goddamn team.	”
—Jim Leyland

With very few exceptions, all editors on SmashWiki would be more effective and capable editors with administrator tools. Administrator tools can let users delete unneeded pages, block vandals, delete useless images, squash useless redirects, seamlessly move pages, and similar quality-of-life edits. As a result, candidates for adminship should not strictly attempt to justify why they deserve administrator tools. The reason we have the entire RfA system is that the tools of the administrator are extremely powerful when used outside of "janitorial work". Blocking and locking are two of the most powerful tools available to admins, and their use can completely stop actions on SmashWiki, as to allow for a period of time where users can have their say, or to stop abuses of the system; however, the extreme power of blocking and locking also means that misuse of either of these tools can create a negative atmosphere, whether for users questioning whether the admin is entirely right in the head, causing disputes to escalate as it appears the admin is "taking sides", or even causing users to quit out of disgust from poor administrating, potentially leading to negative word-of-mouth surrounding SmashWiki. Owing to this, candidates for adminship should justify why they can be trusted with administrator tools, not necessarily why they need them.

The number of active admins

“	Put you three together... and you get a bunch of losers.	”
—K' in The King of Fighters 2002

With SmashWiki's age as a Wiki, there have been a large number of different administrators and bureaucrats that have come and gone over the years. To date, starting in 2006, SmashWiki has had at least 20 different administrators, and almost all of them had to go through the same procedure: start a Request for Adminship, and prove to both the community and the bureaucrats that they could be trusted with the administrator's toolkit.

Something important to note is that, obviously, we haven't had a case where all 20 of those admins have been active at once, as admins invariably become inactive for a number of different reasons. It's impossible to say what the "average" number of active admins has been over the years, but they have fluctuated, from a high of seven active admins in the year of Brawl's release in 2008, down to two for Smash 4's release in 2014. It's also impossible to say what the "sweetspot" for admins should be on SmashWiki, if one indeed exists. A larger adminbase may lead to better policing and quality control, but the possibility of infighting also increases, and disputes between admins can be more far-reaching than disputes between regular users, especially if such disputes involve the future of the Wiki. A smaller adminbase is less likely to have nasty bouts of infighting, but at the same time, their ability to police the Wiki may be thrown into question, especially if a large update concerning Smash or a similar subject pops up.

With this in mind, users who vote on RfAs may consider the current state of activity on SmashWiki while considering who should get adminship, particularly in the case of "fringe" candidates that have a few small flaws. Standards can slightly decrease in response to having fewer active admins, and conversely, standards may slightly increase in response to a higher number of active admins. Activity can also have an impact; having few admins when there is little going on generally isn't a concern, and as a result, standards may not change for an RfA, but having a large number of admins with little Wiki activity may cause standards to increase, as to avoid over-saturating the adminship position. While changes in activity and the number of admins may change standards, however, an extremely strong shift is unlikely and unacceptable; inherently flawed candidates should never be given adminship just because there are fewer active admins or activity has increased, and model candidates should not be unfairly barred from gaining adminship just because there are more active admins or because activity has lowered.

Administrators are representatives

“	I never attacked him on his looks, and believe me, there's plenty of subject matter right there.	”
—Donald Trump

When an ordinary Joe becomes an administrator on SmashWiki, their responsibilities increase tenfold. Upon becoming administrator, not only do these users gain a number of powerful editing tools, but they also become the users that many newer users may look up to; if an admin can be trusted with administrator powers, then surely they can be trusted to help others, after all. This also extends to regular users, as they have the knowledge that the administrator was able to make it through the wringer of the RfA process. Owing to this, administrators are held to a higher standard than regular users, and as a result, they're going to be under greater scrutiny. How an administrator acts, especially in user disputes, can easily cause users to determine whether or not they can trust an admin. And if several users decide that they can't trust an admin, then the administrator has failed in his or her basic responsibilities.

Conduct off the Wiki, however, is also arguably important in representing the Wiki. After all, if you learnt that an administrator got his or her kicks by performing "scream streams" on Twitch, frequently raged about how some For Glory scrub kicked their arse, or did shoddy administrative work on another social site, what would you think about their administrating on SmashWiki? Would you still take them very seriously? Or, for that matter, the community that voted them in? SmashWiki had to spend several years shaking off allegations that Miles of SmashWiki (talk•contribs•logs) was unfairly given his administrative position, owing to his questionable moderation history on AllIsBrawl, to the point where he was asked to change his username on the site (though this ended up going nowhere). Similarly, long-inactive editor Gargomon251 (talk•contribs•logs) was a solid contributor, but has an infamously negative reputation outside of SmashWiki, most famously on GameFAQs and Reddit; just imagine what the response would be for a layperson if they discovered we had such an individual on our administrative staff.

Now, I'm not saying that you should shut down every single social media account you use, or try to hide it the best you can by camping out on the farthest reaches of the Internet just so you can become an administrator. That's just silly. However, in some cases, it might be for the best to try and distance your SmashWiki persona from your other personas.

What makes a good admin

Now, we're going to switch gears, to looking at some desirable traits of an admin. This core set of traits should be something all candidates for adminship have some experience with, alongside appropriate backing with evidence. If you can't provide evidence that you can perform any of these responsibilities, then your RfA will not and should not pass. Simple as that.

Enforcing guidelines

“	One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is "to be prepared".	”
—Dan Quayle

What separates an admin from a regular user? A number of different tools, but as outlined earlier, blocking and locking are the two biggest. When it comes to adminship, this is likely the biggest question: "Can this candidate be trusted with blocking users and locking pages?" Has the user made an attempt to talk to users in an attempt to understand every side of an issue, are their proposals sound and based on consensus, and have they done so in a way that doesn't smack of sabre rattling or snootiness? Enforcing policy and justifying decisions is one thing; do so with tact is another. Remember: Outside of administrating the Wiki, administrators should see themselves as representatives of a Wiki, able to promote a good, healthy image of SmashWiki on and off its servers.

Furthermore, while an administrator needs to know about how to talk about enforcing guidelines, they should also have a good grasp on what our guidelines are like. Chastising a user for not breaking guidelines can make an admin look like a loose cannon that is only interested in adminship for the sake of adminship, has no idea what he or she is supposed to be enforcing in the first place, or is holding a grudge against a user and wants to make such clear. Conversely, failing to chastise users for breaks in policy can further again suggest that the administrator does not know what to enforce; furthermore, however, it can imply that they have stopped being impartial in a job that requires them to be as impartial as possible. Now, I don't expect an admin to rattle off every single facet and subpoint of every single rule and / or guideline of SmashWiki on the spot. On the contrary, if they could do so without skipping a beat, I'd think they need a break from SmashWiki. However, I do expect that they have a good grasp of them in general, and I also expect them to be on top of their game if an unexpected event comes up, such as new policy, changes to policy, or new breaks in policy that may not have occurred before.

Adding to the above, I also expect admins to be proactive when it comes to potential changes to SmashWiki's guidelines and policies. Now, I don't expect them to pore over every part of our guidelines to determine if there are any gaps that need to be immediately addressed. I do, however, expect admins to consider gaps while they're policing SmashWiki, and I also expect them to be involved whenever a new policy is drafted or proposed; even something as simple as "I agree with the previous votes" gives the impression that they have at least read and considered a proposal, and thus, SmashWiki's future.

People skills

“	People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?	”
—Rodney King

SmashWiki, like any other Wiki, fosters itself on being a collaborative environment. Everyone is expected to work together, within reason, to help make SmashWiki one of the best possible resources on Super Smash Bros. that it can be. Administrators should show a willingness to speak out on issues that may get in the way of this goal, without the input of others. Whether it's a user dispute, disagreement over an article, proposed policy, or similar conflict, administrator candidates should be able to demonstrate that they can take charge in such a way that promotes growth. It doesn't matter if it's a neophyte who only recently joined or a seasoned admin who's been around for years; candidates should show no fear or apprehension at working with others or even rightfully confronting someone over a questionable decision.

Furthermore, in the event that the candidate ends up disagreeing with others, there exists the question of how well they respond to it. Do they start claiming they're more mature and walk away? Do they try to collaborate with the others? Do they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to talk? Do they admit that they are wrong? Do they start damning with faint praise? Do they make you faint with their damn praise? Handling oneself in a debate, no matter how big or small, is important to how users should view adminship candidates. Do you go for a loose cannon that can't take an iota of criticism or will fly off the handle if someone disagrees with them, or do you go for an admin that's willing to consider the opposing viewpoint and will politely admit he or she is wrong in order to get the job done? Again, administrators are expected to represent SmashWiki and its future; what sort of message does it send when an administrator mouths off to a user from the get-go?

Decision-making

“	I won't tell you to become a saint. You should just become an adult who is able to do what you believe is right.	”
—Aoko Aozaki in Tsukihime

Blocking and locking are both serious actions and require admins to know whether or not a dispute or problem requires use of either tool. One wrong move can create a negative environment, especially if it appears a conflict of interest caused such a decision. Some decisions are simple, such as blocking a vandal that's inserting gibberish on pages, or locking a page that has become a hotbed of unconstructive edits, whether from IPs or editors. But decisions where there may not be a clear-cut "wrong" party become less obvious to solve; in the event two users are having a disagreement, does the admin reprimand both, reprimand one, or reprimand neither? Can they dole out punishments that fit the crime? And perhaps most importantly, have they listened to both sides in order to form an opinion, or have they jumped into the fray and started administrating without trying to know every facet of the issue? A regular user isn't immediately trusted with the ability to adequately judge how to proceed, hence why we have the whole RfA procedure in the first place, and candidates should be able to show that they can be trusted to dole out the appropriate punishment in any editing dispute.

Conversely, not using the tools of an administrator when they may be needed can sow further discord among users, as not blocking a "problem user" or otherwise talking things over can imply that the administrator isn't above playing favourites with the userbase. A majority of the Brian Fiasco, where 1337 B33FC4K3 (talk•contribs•logs) constantly flamebaited, used personal attacks without mercy, and edit warred on a page over a game he refused to even play could have been prevented with a block, or some heavy-handed administration, to show the errors of his ways. Administration at the time, however, seemed unwilling to chastise or otherwise reprimand him, with only one message ever posted on his talk page concerning his behaviour from an admin, and on the contrary, they seemed more interested in chastising other users who complained about his conduct. With this lack of significant discipline, SmashWiki's userbase became significantly fractured, possibly the worst in the Post-Wikia Era; a number of users, for instance, formed organised trolling groups in response to the admins' unwillingness to take charge and ended up tormenting a number of different users who were unrelated to the Fiasco, and their continued inability to act in response to this also caused several users to temporarily quit editing in protest, including yours truly.

In addition to knowing how to use their toolset, admins need to also be able know how to quickly use such tools without overstepping their boundaries. An impulsive admin is no better than a vandal and will have to waste time trying to justify their poor decision-making or otherwise clean up their mess, as seen in the Marth dispute of 2015; an indecisive admin, however, is essentially just wasting his or her tools, and will have to waste time trying to justify why they won't use their toolset. Owing to this, prospective administrators should be able to demonstrate that they can make smart decisions concerning conflicts between users, whether via compromise, explaining why one user may be incorrect, etc.

A willingness to learn

“	If everyone got punched in the face for doing something stupid, I think all of us would have black eyes.	”
—Sian Goodin in Backstage Pass

Admins are people, and people will make mistakes. Maybe they jumped into a user dispute far too early. Maybe they didn't think their proposal all the way through. Maybe they snapped at someone because they had a bad day. Maybe their mouth ran faster than their brain. Maybe they cracked the whip too early. Maybe they critically misunderstood a comment made about them. Everyone makes mistakes, does something dumb, or says something stupid. It happens. No editor, let alone admin, has ever been perfect, and a user should not be automatically excluded from adminship simply because of a stupid mistake, nor should an admin be tarred-and-feathered because of one, especially if they can admit that they made a mistake.

However, the mistakes of an admin will come under much greater scrutiny than those from regular users, and like any other user, admins must demonstrate a willingness to learn from their errors, whether by directly addressing it, or indirectly changing their behaviour in response. Furthermore, such a change must be obvious to an outside observer; actions speak louder than words, after all, and if someone claims to have learnt from their mistakes while still acting like a blockhead, then the admin is essentially making the indirect claim that they have done nothing wrong even in the face of evidence.

To wit, all of the different twenty-ish admins on SmashWiki have had at least one major PR failure. I'll provide some examples, but just so you know, if I listed every mistake every admin made, this page would dwarf War and Peace:

• PenguinofDeath (talk•contribs•logs) is one of the most accomplished admins on both SmashWikia and SmashWiki, I feel, in terms of pure administration, having been able to keep a cool head, understand all sides of an issue, and being able to dole out some wicked hilarious English wit. However, he also admitted that he badly bungled the entirety of the Paper Bowser incident, where he poorly handled a case of sockpuppetry and trolling from a few members of our SmashWikia userbase, which undermined his credibility as admin for a few months and forced him to take a temporary break to regather his thoughts.
• Omega Tyrant (talk•contribs•logs) is well-known for his general ass-kicking as admin, his knowledgebase on all the games, competitive expertise, and even making a number of discoveries in the games by himself, such as on priority and spike. However, he also had an infamous meltdown in 2012 after attempting to push for the deletion of userpages for users who had been placed on probation and subsequently getting into heated arguments with several other administrators and users in the following months.
• Serpent King (talk•contribs•logs) made a number of pages and projects, wrote a number of useful policies, and is an all-around affable guy who has done great work in his time here. Regardless, his attempt to curtail Project M coverage on SmashWiki is still considered a pretty boneheaded move, especially when he not only admitted to being unable to leave his bias against Project M at the door, but he also failed to do the appropriate research before his giant proposal and seemed unreceptive to those who countered his arguments.

And yet, despite this, they all still have their jobs. Why? Because they eventually realised their errors, learnt from their experiences, and became better at their jobs because of it. PenguinofDeath became more assertive and both Omega Tyrant and Serpent King eventually dropped their proposals. All three made strides to improving their images, and while it may have taken some time, I’d certainly trust the three with a majority of disputes.

Conversely, Randall00 (talk•contribs•logs) poorly handled a number of user disputes and wasn't above trolling other users himself, sometimes without going through the due process of administrating. What happened to Randall00? He's now a footnote on SmashWiki's history and he had become a pretty big laughingstock by the time he went inactive; he's also arguably the main reason that SmashWiki no longer approves adminship simply because the candidate has competitive expertise, as will be discussed later. Furthermore, upon being confronted over a questionable administrative decision with the block tool, Disaster Flare (talk•contribs•logs) decided that the best course of action was to become passive-aggressive and claim he was more mature by bravely fleeing from the criticism, instead of maybe admitting he made a mistake and learning from it, or at least attempting to justify why he thought his actions were acceptable.

Knowing your limits

“	My dad used to tell me, "Son, don't ever miss a good chance to shut up."	”
—Dr. Phil

No one on the Wiki, whether administrator or regular editor, has complete knowledge on the games or its related subject matters, nor will any editor immediately know every single side of a dispute. As a result, candidates for adminship should demonstrate that they are aware of their own limitations, and should demonstrate that they have the ability to ask for input and to ask questions when they are uncomfortable with what they are working with. An admin who blindly charges into the fray without consulting others is not a good admin, and admins should not blindly delete pages, remove swathes of disputed information, or take part in user disputes when only one side has said their piece.

Tying in with the previous reason (A Willingness to Learn), I am actually more likely to support a candidate who has made his or her fair share of mistakes and demonstrated an ability to learn from them; it demonstrates an appropriately level head, and that they only have the potential to become better editors as they work more and more on SmashWiki. A candidate who has never made a mistake is a wild card, and if they suddenly find themselves under the microscope after making a mistake, there's no telling what sort of reaction we'll get. And of course, the candidate who gets pissy in response to criticism is one we shouldn't accept in the first place.

Showing, not telling

“	But that's Kaede's lie, isn't it?	”
—Kokichi Oma in Dangan Ronpa V3 - Killing Harmony

Now, let's say that you've read this essay and you've found ways to incorporate all of the above into your RfA. You say you can enforce guidelines, work with others, be a shrewd decision-maker, learn from your mistakes, and know your limits. Great work.

Ultimately, however, all of the above points become moot if you can't provide any evidence for them. Any regular Joe Blow can make an RfA where they say "I can be trusted with admin tools" and regurgitate the above information; what separates a successful candidate from an unsuccessful candidate is the ability to prove it. If you're saying you work well with others, but you can't provide evidence that shows it, no one is going to trust you, and your case for adminship only becomes weaker. And more importantly, if someone provides evidence you broke out into all-caps rage against someone in a dispute, and you can't argue it was just a fluke, not only are you an incapable candidate, but you're also a liar. When doing an RfA, build your case, and be prepared to have some evidence on-hand to prevent anyone from poking holes in your argument.

What happens when you can't find something that proves you can accomplish the above? Then it's not time for you to make an RfA.

What doesn't make a good admin

Now, we're going to move onto a different course. RfAs are like a job interview, and ultimately, users are going to attempt to "pad their résumé," so to say. However, the art of bullshit should not be used to prove you would be an effective admin, and some of these statements are ultimately something that should be avoided. Can they be used? Maybe. But don't use them straight, especially without any context. As a note, if you're using more than, say, 3 of these in your RfA, you should probably hold off for a few more months.

"Why not?"

“	I don't even know what I'm doing here...	”
—Queens of the Stone Age's Quick and to the Pointless

This is unquestionably the worst possible reason to make anyone an admin, as it implies that the candidate not actually sure of how he or she would act as admin, except that maybe there's a chance they'll pan out on being everything an admin should be. Users should not gamble on an admin being good; a candidate should demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are competent to be admin from the get-go, especially if they're going to be around for forever. If you ever have to say "Why not?" in your RfA, it's not time for you to make an RfA.

"We need more admins"

“	I wanna join the NRA, no retards allowed! We're semi-automatic psychopathic fucks, we're armed, and we're proud!	”
—Darkbuster's Join the NRA

It is true that when there is a lower number of active admins, there may be greater pressure placed on the current administrators to police SmashWiki; as a result, the standards of an RfA may slightly dip in times when there are fewer active admins around, simply as to get more active admins on-board.

An important concept to note, however, is that while standards may become slightly lower when there are fewer active admins, they never significantly decrease, nor do they ever become non-existent. The candidate still has to prove they are perfectly capable of being an admin; while minor quibbles may be glossed over, glaring flaws are never ignored, and simply citing a lowered number of admins to become admin is not a tactic you should try to use to get through the wringer.

"I'm a better candidate than X user"

“	You think comin' out of a rich dude's ballsack makes you better than me, an actual genius!?	”
—Miu Iruma in Dangan Ronpa V3 - Killing Harmony

Adminship is not a contest. We do not use relative measures for determining who should be an admin and who shouldn't be; we strictly look at arguments pertinent to yourself and your behaviour. What difference does it make if X user is a horrible candidate when you're the one with the actual RfA?

Outside of the above, comparing yourself to someone else can lead to frankly insulting comparisons. By outlining someone else's failures and how you're a better editor, I wouldn't think of you as a good candidate; on the contrary, I'd see you as an insecure bully that's more interested in some petty feud rather than furthering SmashWiki's future.

And of course, if everyone got adminship for being better than someone else, then frankly, everyone would get adminship except for vandals.

"I'm tough on vandals"

“	Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country, and neither do we.	”
—George W. Bush

The process of getting rollback has been considerably streamlined since the days of SmashWikia, and as a result, we currently have a large number of trusted rollbackers who can handle vandalism at almost any time of the day. Even then, a majority of vandals merely do "one-and-done" vandalism, something frankly not worth blocking over, and in the event of more problematic vandals, constantly rollbacking their edits is, for all intents and purposes, similar to a block. Sure, blocking is a useful tool, but knowing how and when to block is far more important than actually blocking. Which requires our candidate to be knowledgeable about what it takes to be an admin: blocking a vandal, or blocking a potentially misguided user?

And let's be honest, the only people that won't claim to be tough on vandals will be vandals themselves. And if it's a selling point for everyone, then it's not a selling point.

"I'm very active"

“	Thou shalt not go to the same club or bar, week in, week out, just because you once saw a girl there that you fancied that you're never going to fucking talk to!	”
—dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip's Thou Shalt Always Kill

So you log into SmashWiki everyday. Nice work. However, in doing so, what have you proven? Probably nothing. Being active does not automatically make a good admin. Toomai (talk•contribs•logs) doesn't log in every single day, and he's a generally fine admin. Conversely, Shaun's Wiji Dodo (talk•contribs•logs) was active almost every day at one point, and he was never viewed as a serious admin candidate due to his immature conduct, especially on IRC.

"I live outside of the United States"

“	Looking for America, with its kooky nights and suicide, where the TV says it's alright, 'cause everybody's hung up on something or other...	”
—Blur's Look Inside America

Most of SmashWiki and its editors are based in the United States of America, and having admins active outside of our hours may seem pretty useful. But to make it a strong selling point is weak. Essentially, the only worthwhile argument for living outside of the United States is that it lets you combat vandalism while most of the Wiki is sleeping; this more or less overlaps with "I'm tough on vandals", in that SmashWiki already has an abundance of rollbackers, and again, being tough on vandalism is no longer a selling point of adminship.

Solar Dragon (talk•contribs•logs) lived in the United Kingdom, was active every day at one point, and had administrative experience on Wikisimpsons. However, he was never considered a serious candidate for adminship on SmashWiki, owing to his self-admitted immature conduct and a number of other problems involving him and some other users, including a particularly high-profile incident with one of our administrators in late 2011.

"I'm a nice guy"

“	I'm not here to blow smoke up your fucking ass, let me tell you that. I'm here to fix the restaurant, but you are one big obstacle, aren't you?	”
—Gordon Ramsay in Kitchen Nightmares

Adminship involves ensuring that the future of SmashWiki is safe given any and all adversity. Being a nice guy who gets run over by other users isn't useful for an admin. Granted, an admin shouldn't be outright insulting other users, but they should know when to put his or her foot down in the event of disputes or other assorted episodes of tomfoolery. And furthermore, being a nice guy doesn't show that you can handle yourself in a user dispute; on the contrary, being too much of a softie could prevent an administrator from doling out appropriate punishment, as seen in the Brian Fiasco, or cause an over-reliance on the golden mean fallacy in an attempt to defuse user disputes. Or worse, cause them to say "drop it", something that only makes disputes worse, since it can suggest that the admin has no interest in doing their job.

Furthermore, don't try to conflate "popularity" with "good admin candidate"; knowing a lot of users won't magically make you a better admin, and on the contrary, if you get along with everyone without a single issue, it can suggest that you're willing to ignore the flaws of others for the sake of blowing smoke up their arse, something that can lead to conflict of interest editing and / or policing. As an admin, you're going to have cases where you might have to discipline someone you consider a friend; are you going to let your feelings get in the way of SmashWiki's future? Plus, what sends a better message to those that read your RfA: talk page posts that show you de-escalating a user dispute, or some arbitrary number on your user page that declares X users to be your "friends"?

Anther is one of the nicest people I've ever met in my life. But he's never edited SmashWiki, and I don't want him to be an admin as a result. Conversely, our old friend Clarinet Hawk (talk•contribs•logs) didn't exactly have a million dollar personality when it came to people who didn't get SmashWiki and its policies, especially when he was drunk. Regardless, he was a still fine admin, owing to the points atop the page; he knew how to handle user disputes, and how to best use his admin skills.

"I'm active on Discord"

“	It's not that I don't like your friend, but how many hours with him can you spend? It's not that I don't think he's great, but it's only you... only you... I wanna fellate...	”
—Garfunkel and Oates' Me, You, and Steve

Discord has always been considered a separate entity from SmashWiki; there's a reason that bans on the former aren't reflected on SmashWiki and vice versa. Could adminship of such a channel be a useful tool for an RfA? Maybe. But simply sitting on our Discord server won't make your case stronger. By design, Discord is very lax in its policing, and are much more informal in tone; I know I said people skills are important, but SmashWiki and its professional tone trumps Discord and its informal tone. How would you feel if you ran a prestigious law firm, and a job candidate said he had great people skills from holding house parties with kegs of beer lying around?

Mousehunter321 (talk•contribs•logs) was a part of the Core Four of 2012 (alongside myself, HavocReaper48, and Megatron1), and was considered an extremely strong candidate for adminship, possibly the most out of the active user base and indeed, between the four of us. Despite this, he almost never used IRC, and communicated almost entirely through talk pages, something that didn't get in the way of his extremely productive output. Conversely, Brian was infamous for his flamebaiting, trollbaiting, frequent violations of policies (including NPA and 1RV), and for just being unpleasant to interact with (such as the time he spent over an hour bitching about how some IRL friends of his bought him Smash 4 as an impromptu gift). And yet, he was extremely active on IRC and more or less knew about every active user on SmashWiki.

"I've been around for a while"

“	Buster so excelled at being neither seen nor heard that he remained at school undetected for a full two semesters after he was supposed to graduate.	”
—The Narrator in Arrested Development

Simply being active on the Wiki for a long period of time doesn't automatically make a case for adminship stronger. If someone spent 5 years on the Wiki, but continued acting like a blockhead just like the day they joined, would you accept their RfA? Of course not. Does activity have a role in adminship? Sure. It can imply experience with editing and a theoretical knowledge of our policies. But by itself, it is a useless argument of no value.

Air Conditioner (talk•contribs•logs) had three years of experience before she became inactive, and she had even been viewed as a potentially fringey candidate shortly before her official departure. She knew her limits, however, and refused to ever run for adminship, aware that her temper could cloud her judgement and prevent her from effectively and safely using the administrator's toolset. Conversely, Omega Tyrant (talk•contribs•logs) was only active for a few months before getting adminship, owing to his ability to enforce policy, get involved with stalemated user disputes, and his need to delete pages.

"I have a feedback page"

“	Do you suffer from long-term memory loss? I don't remember...	”
—Chumbawamba's Amnesia

This is essentially my "A willingness to learn" point from above, but stripped of all its useful traits. Is having a feedback page useful? Maybe. I myself don't see the point, since I feel that's what your talkpage is for, but different strokes for different folks. Regardless, having a feedback page, reading a feedback page, and listening to a feedback page are all completely different actions. If someone tells you, "Hey, stop being so dense and realise that maybe XYZ isn't the best course of action" on your feedback page, how do you respond? Do you ignore it and pretend you didn't read it? Do you address it? Do you learn from it? And so on, and so forth.

In addition, having a feedback page can lead to some sneaky, underhanded techniques in an RfA that candidates shouldn't use. Users are not immediately pinged if their feedback is edited, compared to their talk page; as a result, users can claim "Whoops, I didn't get pinged for that, and I missed that message!", whereas they can't easily make such a claim on topic of their own talk page. Transparency is also an issue; users aren't immediately pressured to check in on their feedback pages, whereas that nagging orange box certainly makes talk page posts more visible.

And then you got Miles and his now-deleted feedback page, which was created in 2014, had its last edit in 2016, and was only linked to from four different pages, three of which were archives... and one of which was this very essay.

"I'm a good editor"

“	Doesn't matter if you're skinny, doesn't matter if you're fat, you can dress up like a sultan in your onion head hat.	”
—Cake's Comfort Eagle

This one, I feel, is one that is most heavily misused. Candidates keep trying to use their Huge Editing Project as the reason they deserve adminship, how their Huge Editing Project shows they can handle adminship, or how their large knowledgebase justifies them having adminship. But while being a good editor is always welcome, the skillsets of being a good editor and being a good admin are different.

If someone made 100 articles, but never spoke to anyone and never bothered to enforce policy, would you give them adminship? Probably not. Adminship is built on how well you can collaborate with others and how well you can police the userbase. Will all your fancy projects demonstrate that? Probably not, unless they're huge collaborations with a number of other users... and if everyone just did their work without a single argument, it doesn't demonstrate that you have the admin skillset. It just shows you can delegate.

Emmett (talk•contribs•logs) was never huge on mainspace edits. I don't think he ever had a Huge Editing Project like other users, and most of his edits were rather minor. How did he become a bureaucrat? He was excellent at handling user disputes of all sorts. Didn't hurt that he wrote tonnes of policies that are still being used to this day, including mainstays such as NPA, TALK, and SIGN.

"I am knowledgeable about the games / I have a community presence"

“	I don't like the looks of this doctor. I bet I've lost more patients than he's even treated.	”
—Dr. John Zoidberg in Futurama

A number of SmashWiki's admins, both past and present, have been involved in the competitive scene or are otherwise very knowledgeable about the games from a technical standpoint. Omega Tyrant could get Power Ranked in three different games in his region, Clarinet Hawk and Semicolon were important TOs in Iowa in the mid-00s, and Toomai and Serpent King both have considerable knowledge of the games and they have the know-how on how to retrieve pertinent technical information. Regardless, being a "good smasher", a "good community presence", or a "good dataminer" don't reflect the responsibilities of an admin, much like being a "good editor", as none of these boons really demonstrate why you need administrative powers. If you can perform 105 consecutive waveshines without skipping a beat or recite all of Link's frame data in Melee, does that mean you automatically know the best way to handle a user dispute? Probably not, unless a user dispute does actually require you to know everything about Link's frame data in Melee. But for some reason, I don't foresee that happening any time soon.

To my knowledge, PenguinofDeath never took part in a Smash tournament, and I don't think he was ever really involved with the greater Smash community. He was still an effective admin, even if he sometimes needed to ask questions about some of the finer nuances of Smash. Conversely, as outlined earlier, Randall00 was a proficient smasher, an effective tournament organiser, and a well-known community presence in Canada, but he was ultimately a below-par admin. Plus, outside of SmashWiki, Leffen probably has more experience in Smash than all of SmashWiki's editors combined. But he's a loose cannon, and I don't want him to be admin either.

"I have x number of edits"

“	Pretzels is the same.	”
—Hannibal Burress on The Eric Andre Show

Edit count means nothing, since it doesn't showcase whether or not your edits were particularly noteworthy, and it doesn't give the reader any measure of how well you can enforce policy. If a user updates deprecated code on 10,000 pages, does that demonstrate a need for adminship? No. It demonstrates a need for a bot.

MHStarCraft (talk•contribs•logs), who has been here since 2010, currently has over 20,000 edits. Regardless, Dots agrees that he doesn't deserve adminship, as he admits to sometimes poorly articulating on talk pages and he holds a number of biases that would impact how he administrates, such as his bias against Project M. Conversely, Emmett has made only about 2,000 edits since his debut in 2008, and he's a fine admin.

"I'm good with rollback"

“	This is Onishima! I'm sendin' in the tanks! I don't care what happens, just get those punks!!	”
—Captain Onishima in Jet Set Radio

This is like saying that if you know how to load a water gun, you can operate a sub-machine gun with no issues. Rollback is almost solely designed for combatting vandalism; any user, however, can combat vandalism, and simply using rollback as an attempt to justify your RfA just smacks of desperation. The actual process to get Rollback is no longer as complicated as it once was, and at this point, getting rollback just means you've been in the right place at the right time, something we shouldn't reward with automatic adminship, especially given how saturated the rollback position has become.

As an addendum, we've had only one user lose their rollback privileges... and that was because they were suspected of using sockpuppets to gain them. To date, no one has lost rollback over its misuse, implying that more or less everyone who has gained rollback can be trusted with it. And once again, if it's a selling point for everyone, then it's not a selling point.

"I have administrative experience"

“	Great people have great egos. Maybe that's what makes them great.	”
—Paul Arden

This is an argument that can go either way. On one hand, being an administrator or equally important role on another Wiki can suggest that you have administrative experience and you have the administrator's skillset. It also suggests that you had the ability to get a community to trust you and your judgement, further boons to an RfA.

However, differing Wikis may have differing policies and ways that disputes are handled, as well as differing responsibilities for administrators. Our friends at Bulbapedia, for instance, feature an administrator position, not unlike our own. If a user had such a position on Bulbapedia, however, the differences in power compared to the Administrator position on SmashWiki are something that they would have to take note of; administrators on Bulbapedia, for instance, cannot place users on probation (this privilege is instead restricted to their bureaucrats), while Administrators on SmashWiki can, and as such, a candidate who has adminship on Bulbapedia will need to explain that they can still handle such responsibilities.

Outside of the above, there exists the question as to how relevant tools on other Wikis may be in relation to SmashWiki. On MarioWiki, for instance, Administrators can mark edits as patrolled, as well as automatically having their own edits patrolled; while this is an important tool on MarioWiki, where their candidates need to show that they can be trusted to know the ins-and-outs of the system, it can't be applied to SmashWiki, as we currently don't use the patrol system, and I don't foresee us ever doing so.

Activity standards on different Wikis can also lead to differing responsibilities from administrators. Some Wikis out there are far more active than SmashWiki is, like the aforementioned MarioWiki and Bulbapedia. But others may have less activity, and thus, fewer chances for an administrator to flex their muscles, such as on Donkey Kong Wiki or WiKirby. I'd say SmashWiki is somewhat middle of the road when it comes to activity in NIWA, and that's something that may need to be considered for administrators on Wikis that may be more inactive than others.

PSIWolf (talk•contribs•logs) was an administrator on Game & Watch Wiki, a now-defunct Wiki devoted to the Game & Watch games and universe. Even excepting that the wiki never became particularly large or active in its brief history, to the point where active users like yours truly often became administrators without needing an RfA, PSIWolf will likely never become administrator on SmashWiki, given his current inactivity and his legendary meltdown in 2015.

"X user supports me"

“	My imaginary friend didn't come through in the end, so I'll have to find a real one. Didn't answer when I called, well, I guess it's just because he was never there at all...	”
—Reel Big Fish's My Imaginary Friend

This is another argument that can go either way, but ultimately, it should not be considered a serious factor in an RfA. The first thing to remember is that having a large number of people support you means nothing; RfAs have not, do not, and will not run on vote count, and sucking up to a lot of people to get them on your side only shows you can suck up to a lot of people, not be an effective admin. Endorsements from an admin, or any particularly well-established user, may carry more weight, but remember, admins are not kings, and they shouldn't be fighting your battles; if the tide turns against you in an RfA, you can't hope for an admin to fish you out of your mess. Furthermore, strictly relying on an administrator in hopes of getting your RfA through will only make you seem weak and unable to form your own decisions, characteristics unbecoming of an administrator.

Also, if you have several well-established users and admins already telling you to make an RfA, why on earth are you reading this page? You probably already know what a good RfA requires.

"SmashWiki is my greatest priority"

“	Marvin walked into a helpless land, and wondered lightly, am I happy? Is this happy?	”
—Tally Hall's Taken For A Ride

While I don't consider this a "true" demerit against a user's RfA, I still heavily dislike it when candidates, or indeed, regular users, try to claim that SmashWiki is their biggest priority in life, as though to claim that they are wholly devoted to the future of SmashWiki. While this is an admirable goal, and it acts as a logical extension of how I want administrators to help SmashWiki's growth and future, ultimately, SmashWiki should not be considered an important cornerstone in your everyday life. This is just an online encyclopaedia devoted to a children's video game series; no matter what happens, your life will always hold far more worth than SmashWiki.

We've had users come and go for a variety of different reasons. General boredom, divorce, deaths in the family, mental health issues, surgeries, and many other personal events. I don't consider it weak or cowardly for users to leave SmashWiki if they feel their personal life has become too hectic; on the contrary, I would prefer that they take some time off to try and figure things out, as to prevent their everyday life from potentially causing issues on SmashWiki, or vice versa. Plus, these problems can come and go; SmashWiki will still be here when you get back. At worst, all you have to do is meet-and-greet with users who have joined since your last appearance, and maybe brush up on policy.

What doesn't make a good oppose reason

And finally, while these aren't something you as a candidate can change, these are some factors to take into account if you're worried your RfA will not be immediately accepted, as well as if you try voting on other RfAs. Frankly, none of these factors should get in your way if you're a qualified candidate, nor should they be considered barriers for growth in the event the community feels you're not qualified to be admin.

"X user is not active on Discord"

“	How can you govern a country which has two hundred and forty-six varieties of cheese?	”
—Charles de Gaulle

Read above on why Discord is unimportant to judging a candidate's credentials. To repeat: SmashWiki's Discord server and SmashWiki itself are two separate entities, and experience in one does not and should not strictly reflect experience on the other. I actually think granting admin privileges on Discord for SmashWiki's administrators is an incredibly stupid idea, given the differing standards on what is considered appropriate conduct, but that's not the point of this page. I also don't think it's fair to keep discussions on Discord and away from SmashWiki, but again, that's not the point of this page.

Plus, some of us just aren't crazy about Discord. It's like IRC, but without the personality.

"X user is mean"

“	What do you mean I hurt your feelings? I didn't know you had any feelings! What do you mean I ain't kind? I'm just not your kind!	”
—Megadeth's Peace Sells

"Mean" is a very subjective term, and subjective arguments are of little value in an RfA. On one hand, we probably shouldn't accept a candidate who has a history of calling people "fucking retards" (which actually happened at least twice on SmashWikia) or "fucking faggots" (which actually happened at least once on SmashWikia). On the other hand, there exists the question of what "mean" means. OT and Clarinet Hawk could be somewhat infamous for their sometimes biting criticism and acerbic wit to users who never attempt to learn from their mistakes; to what extent, however, is this considered mean? Most users will get aggravated at a user who never learns, and ultimately, more and more forceful language may be required to finally drill the point in. That said, an admin candidate probably shouldn't immediately crack the whip on new users, nor should they be overly inflammatory, but simply being somewhat snide from time to time isn't a particularly strong reason to oppose someone's RfA. Judgment trumps your feelings.

"We have too many admins"

“	Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded.	”
—Yogi Berra

This overlaps with the "We need more admins" reasoning above. A qualified candidate is a qualified candidate; the number of active administrators has little effect on whether they would be competent with admin tools or not, and again, editors should not allow their expectations of administrators be significantly raised or lowered in response to changes in activity. Can standards for admins be slightly higher when there are more admins? Maybe; too many admins could potentially lead to the increased risk of infighting, and admin firefights can be pretty brutal for everyone on the Wiki. However, I don't think SmashWiki will ever end up getting to that point where we start to really worry about admin infighting, and as a result, strictly excluding someone from adminship just because there are a high number of active admins should not be considered a valid line of reasoning for opposing an RfA.

Plus, let's say that we reject an ideal admin candidate just because we have "too many admins". What happens if one of those admins has to go on extended leave two hours after the RfA is rejected? Saying "Whoops, sorry pal, didn't see that one coming, be sure to apply again!" is completely unacceptable; he or she should have been accepted in the first place.

PenguinofDeath is still one of the finest admins SmashWiki has ever had, and when his RfA was accepted in 2009, there were seven active admins and two semi-active ones. Should we have deprived PenguinofDeath of his rightful sysop position just because of this glut of admins? The answer is a resounding no.

"X user was previously blocked"

“	And I will remember your name and face on the day you are judged by the funhouse cast, and I will rejoice in your fall from grace, with a cane to the sky like, "None shall pass."	”
—Aesop Rock's None Shall Pass

A block implies that a user has continually failed to learn from their errors, has performed a gross violation of policy, or has otherwise required discipline due to some frequent boneheaded decisions. A block could also imply admin incompetence, though this rarely ever happens, and I can't think of many truly unjustifiable blocks on SmashWiki in the Post-Wikia Era.

In any case, a block is a significant demerit on a user's record, given the implications I have just mentioned, and they can go against the useful traits of admins I have outlined above. However, they shouldn't be considered a be-all, end-all argument against a user becoming admin. One of the most important aspects of being an admin is showing a willingness to learn, whether from one's own mistakes or the mistakes of others. If a user is able to move on from their block by becoming a better person, is a previous block truly a negative selling point? Yeah, it's on the permanent record, but if everyone involved moved on, what difference does it make?

On that note, don't think there's a magic number where a user becomes automatically exonerated from a block. A block from 4 years ago probably isn't relevant, but if a user still acts like a jackass, then they shouldn't be admin. And while it is rather unlikely, it's entirely possible for someone to learn from their mistakes only hours after a block, and hit the ground running when they finally return.

Blue Ninjakoopa (talk•contribs•logs) has had a notably chequered history on SmashWiki; initially joining during the SmashWikia days, during the Post-Brawl Rush of 2008, BNK proved a difficult user, known for his short temper, immature conduct, and frequent arguments with others, including particularly infamous feuds with many of our former admins. Of course, his behaviour led to 19 different blocks on SmashWikia, some of which were infinite and later reduced on appeal. Something to note, however, is that BNK eventually, for the lack of a better phrase, grew up, becoming considerably more mature by the end of 2010, behaviour that has continued to the present day. Whether or not he's a true admin candidate now is debatable, but I'd say he's certainly much closer now than he was in 2008.

"X user would be better as admin"

“	We're the same and we're not, know what I'm saying? Listen, so I ain't better than you, I just think different.	”
—Nujabes's Think Different

Excluding someone from adminship simply because there may be a better candidate is unacceptable. The goal of an RfA is to determine if the candidate is competent to be admin, and again, adminship is not a contest. If you want X user to become an admin so badly, then convince them to run; don't denigrate someone else for not being your preferred candidate. If I could, among the users I'd vote for in an RFA include HavocReaper48 (talk•contribs•logs), Mousehunter321 (talk•contribs•logs), or Megatron1 (talk•contribs•logs). But they're all inactive and I don't foresee them coming back any time soon. Regardless, I'm not going to oppose someone for simply not being them.

For similar reasons, in the event two or more RfAs are going on, do not attempt to compare candidates, and do not think that only one candidate should "win". Once again, adminship is not a contest, and all admins should be judged strictly by their own qualifications and credentials.

"X and Y users aren't on the best terms"

“	I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it.	”
—Ruth Bader Ginsburg

While SmashWiki is a collaborative effort, ultimately, some users may simply find it difficult to empathise with with others. Maybe one user thinks everything should be taken as seriously as possible, and another thinks that humour is always welcome regardless of the circumstances. Maybe someone really doesn't like Melee and someone else really doesn't like Ultimate. Maybe one users loves their crude humour and another thinks that it has no place on SmashWiki. With a userbase as large as SmashWiki's, it's unrealistic and unfeasible to expect everyone to automatically and completely get along. While a user who has a beef with more or less everyone probably shouldn't be an admin, a user who has known conflicts with some users can still be a fine admin, provided they can demonstrate a willingness to put all conflicts at the door in the event of a dispute or similar event.

Two of our sysops, Semicolon and Emmett, almost never saw eye to eye. Emmett thought Semi never took his job seriously enough, while Semi thought Emmett always had a stick rammed up his arse. And of course, there were their famous flamewars and debates on SWIRC way back in the day. In Clarinet Hawk's "SmashWiki: The Movie", Emmett and Semi were identified by ending almost all their conversations with the phrase "mutual disrespect". Guess what? Although they sometimes disagreed with one another, they were willing to put their differences aside and would discuss decisions with one another if there was ever a true dispute between them. Maybe they didn't become best buddies, but they could develop a certain degree of understanding with one another.

Outside of this, there have been, for the lack of a better phrase, some truly divisive figures on SmashWiki that attracted quite a bit of heat due to their conduct. BNK. Drilly Dilly. GalaxiaD. Bandit. Brian. Doc King. And so on and so forth. Do you automatically exclude people from adminship because they had a feud with such figures? Probably not, depending on how all parties acted.

And even then, if we only accepted candidates where they got along with every single user they came across, then we'd have precisely zero admins on SmashWiki. I'm not going to provide examples of this, since it'd become a disruptive waste of time that'd only further divides rather than repair them, but in essence, every regular user on SmashWiki, no matter how "successful", has had at least one vocal critic, whether deserved or undeserved.

"X user doesn't support you"

“	This is the worst kind of discrimination: The kind against me!	”
—Bender in Futurama

RfAs should be based on what the candidate has provided and what their other qualifications may be. The positions of other users should not be strictly considered when forming your own vote; instead, any important concerns or points about a candidate's qualifications brought up by other users should be considered. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with another user, but just like a user dispute, try to look at every possible perspective, then form your own opinion; even if you agree with someone else, try to add a new perspective or some new information someone else hasn't brought up. And don't be afraid to be that one dissenting voice; no one's going to cut your hand off just because you happen to disagree with them, and if someone is petty enough to get mad you for disagreeing, then they frankly weren't your friend in the first place.

On a related note, please try to keep your comments on an RfA on-topic. The point of an RfA to decide whether or not the candidate is qualified. Discussions about who's on whose side provides nothing, nor do comments involving "this may actually pass", "it's my fault that this is happening", etc. We are interested in seeing who is a qualified candidate, and why. Nobody cares about many pity points you can accrue for yourself or how you can turn the RfA into a presidential debate shown on primetime television, and nobody is going to pityfuck you because you think you derailed an RfA.

And please, for the love of Christ almighty, don't be that jackass who says "keep this away from x user". Outside of the fact that attempting to prevent someone from voting goes against the entire fucking point of an RfA, if you have to keep an RfA away from another user, ostensibly to prevent them from making serious arguments against the candidate, then chances are, it's not a very good RfA in the first place.

Closing thoughts, or, the last few bricks

“	Only the best is good enough.	”
—Ole Kirk Christiansen

Beyond this essay, there are a few other notable readings I feel any prospective admin should look over. Among these include:

• Older RfAs, whether failed or accepted. Try to see what separates successful candidates from unsuccessful candidates, especially in the post-Wikia era.
  • While the goals of a Request for Bureaucrat are different from that of an RfA, old RfBs can also be a useful resource, as to see what makes an admin successful enough to warrant further promotion. In particular, Miles's failed RfB in 2015 was a major impetus for the creation of this essay, owing to concerns I had with both Miles's claimed qualifications and comments made by several users in response.
• The survey results of the Miles-OmegaTyrant Dispute of 2014, where a number of different users at the time, including yours truly, gave their thoughts on an admin dispute. Regardless of who you think was in the wrong in the whole dispute, or indeed, if both were in the wrong, it's still a good look at what our general userbase expects from our administrators.
• Emmett's "Qualifications" page, where he discusses the roles of an administrator. While it hasn't received a significant update since 2019, it's still an excellent resource concerning the subject; furthermore, it gives a good insight as to what bureaucrats look for in administrators, as it is ultimately up to the discretion of the bureaucrats to promote prospective admins.
• Serpent King's message to those who wish to become an admin. Written while he was still an administrator and after his failed Project M proposal, it gives an insight to the mind of one of our administrators, and what he feels the userbase should expect from him, and vice versa.
  • Similarly, his page on his goals as admin, where he gives a basic outline as to what the role of an administrator on SmashWiki is.
• Mr. Anon's RFA voting guide, where he discusses who is fit to be admin, what their responsibilities are, and what makes a good RfA vote. Written in response to the failed RfAs of ToastUltimatum and Unknown the Hedgehog in February 2012, it remains incomplete, but it's here for posterity.

Thank you for reading this essay, and for potentially considering some of the arguments I have put forward. Note, however, that this essay is not meant to be an "end-all-be-all" guide to adminship; I'm sure there are people out there who may disagree with some of the points I bring up, there may be important points I've neglected to include, and some people may disagree with what I've intentionally left out or what I've chosen to include. In any case, I certainly don't intend for this to be a "how-to" or a "paint-by-numbers" guide for anyone who's interested in running for administrator; rather, it should be viewed as a supplement to the process, to help others out on either making an RfA, or voting for one.

Much like SmashWiki itself, this essay will also likely never be complete. Perhaps our policies will change, perhaps SmashWiki will change what we expect from our admins, or perhaps that whole Junior Administrators idea finally gets off the ground. Regardless of what happens, I'll try to see if I can keep this page as up-to-date as possible.

The greatest thing a writer can receive is constructive criticism. If you have some thoughts on this essay, please don't hesitate to drop a line on my talkpage.