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.

I will name-drop a number of different users in this essay. If by happen-stance you encounter your own name here and find yourself offended, don't be a simpleton and immediately delete it; ask me to remove it in a way that isn't dickish, and I might consider doing so.

In the event that I have misremembered an event, please inform me so that I can rectify such an error.

Disagree with something on this page? Drop a line on my talk page.

“	It's actually quite simple, but since you've only recently begun to walk upright, it may take some time to explain.	”
—Magic: The Gathering card - "Redirect".

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.

I'm 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 almost 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 have perfectly adapted to their new role, and admins that were, or are, badly over-matched for their job.

The Golden Rules of Adminship

“	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. 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. Blocking and locking 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, misuse of either of these tools can create a negative atmosphere, whether for users questioning whether the admin is entirely right in the head, or even causing users to quit out of disgust, 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.

What makes a good admin

We're going to start off with some desirable traits of admins. This core set of traits should be something all candidates for adminship have some experience with, with 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.

Ability to enforce guidelines

“	I think that I have made good judgements in the past, and I think that I have made good judgements in the future.	”
—Dan Quayle

What separates an admin from a regular user? Blocking and locking. When it comes to adminship, this is the big question: "Can X candidate be trusted with blocking and locking tools?" Has the user made an attempt to talk to users, and more importantly, have they done so in a way that doesn't smack of sabre rattling or snootiness? Enforcing policy is one thing; enforcing policy 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.

People skills

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

SmashWiki fosters itself on being a collaborative environment. Everyone is expected to work together, within reason, to help make SmashWiki one of the best possible guides it can be.

Ultimately, administrators should show a willingness to speak out on issues without the input of others. Whether it's a user dispute, disagreement over an article, proposed policy, or similar dispute, administrator candidates should be able to demonstrate that they can take charge in such a way that promotes growth. Doesn't matter if it's an ordinary Joe or an admin who's been around for years; candidates should show no fear or apprehension at rightfully confronting someone.

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 do you go for an admin that's willing to consider the opposing viewpoint in order to get the job done?

As a final note, while it is not necessary for a successful RfA, candidates should demonstrate an ability to effectively communicate off the Wiki. Once again, administrators should see themselves as representatives of SmashWiki, able to promote a good image off the Wiki. A loose cannon is not acceptable, and neither is an immature brat.

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. But decisions where there may not be a clear-cut "wrong" party become less obvious to solve.

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 one user 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; the lack of any significant discipline from the admins, however, only led to organised trolling, a fractured userbase, and a generally negative environment that didn't truly end until Brian became inactive.

In addition to knowing how to use their toolset, admins need to also be able know how to quickly and decisively use such tools. An impulsive admin is no better than a vandal and will have to waste time trying to justify their poor decision-making, as well as clean up their mess, as seen in the Marth dispute of 2015; an indecisive admin, however, is essentially just wasting his or her tools.

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 their policy didn't pass. Maybe they snapped at someone because they had a bad day. Maybe their fingers ran faster than their brain. Maybe they cracked the whip too early on a new user. Everyone makes mistakes or does 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.

However, the mistakes of an admin will come under much greater scrutiny than those from regular users. Like any other user, however, 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; anyone can say "I'll work on it," but only some will truly work on it. And remember: If you have to constantly claim you've changed your behaviour, you probably haven't.

Every admin on SmashWiki has had a number of PR failures. 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 be 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.
• 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, 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.
• 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 on SmashWiki is now considered a pretty boneheaded move, especially when it turned out he was not only biased against PM in the first place, but he also failed to do the appropriate research before his giant proposal.

And yet, despite this, they all still have their jobs. Why? Because they eventually realised their errors, and learnt from their experiences.

Conversely, Randall00 (talk•contribs•logs) poorly handled a number of user disputes and wasn't above trolling other users, sometimes without going through the due process of administrating. What happened to Randall00? He became a footnote on SmashWiki's history and a pretty big laughingstock by the time he became inactive; he's also arguably the main reason that SmashWiki no longer approves adminship simply because the candidate has competitive expertise.

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 user 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. Administrators 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, 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 get better 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 should never accept in the first place.

What doesn't make a good admin

Now, we're going to move onto a different course of reason. RfAs are somewhat 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. 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. It implies that you're not actually sure of how the user would act as admin. 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. If you ever have to ask "Why not?" for an admin candidate, it's time to oppose them.

"We need more admins"

“	Once he'd worked out which end of the thing was sharp, he was promoted to guard duty.	”
—Magic: The Gathering card - "Goblin Piker".

Editors should neither raise nor lower their expectations of administrator candidates just because there's more or less of them that are active. If the perfect candidate entered the room with 8 active administrators, would you say no? Of course not. And if there were no active admins, would you allow an inherently flawed candidate to become admin? Again, of course not.

"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.

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, you don't come across as an admin candidate; you come across as an insecure bully. And of course, if everyone got adminship for being better than someone else, then frankly, everyone would get adminship except for someone who made one grammar edit, then disappeared.

Also, don't be that guy who claims that you can do a better job than an existing admin. If you have to make the claim you're better than someone, you're probably not; your actions should speak louder than words. And if you think an admin, or any user for that matter, is doing a crap job, tell it to their face instead of talking behind their back.

"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

With the rollbacker group already becoming saturated as-is, vandalism is less of an issue than ever before. After all, constantly rollbacking a vandal is quite 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?

Also, 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"

“	There are medicines for all afflictions but idleness.	”
—Magic: The Gathering card - "Stupor".

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 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.

"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 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 the rest 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 one of our administrators.

"I'm a nice guy"

“	My, was he a wimpy chump.	”
—Post-mortem screen of DoomRL.

Adminship is 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.

You know who's a nice guy? Anther. But he's also never edited SmashWiki, and I wouldn't want him to be an admin as a result. Conversely, our old friend Semicolon (talk•contribs•logs) didn't exactly have a million dollar personality when it came to people who really didn't get SmashWiki and its policies. 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 IRC / 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.

IRC and Discord have always been considered separate entities from SmashWiki; there's a reason that bans on the former two aren't reflected on SmashWiki and vice versa. Could adminship of such a channel be a useful tool for an RfA? Probably. But simply sitting on an IRC server won't make your case stronger. By design, IRC and Discord are very lax in their policing, and are much more informal in tone; I know I said people skills are important, but SmashWiki and its professional tone trumps IRC / Discord and their informal tones. 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 four of us. Despite this, he almost never used IRC, and communicated almost entirely through talk pages. Conversely, Brian was infamous for his flamebaiting, trollbaiting, and frequent violations of policies, including NPA and 1RV, and he was also extremely active on IRC. 'Nuff said.

"I've been around for a while"

“	Those of you who've been around since the playoffs 35 years ago are invited to the night game free of charge!	”
—The Announcer of Baseball Stars 2.

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? Yes. But using by itself is useless.

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 a bit before she left. 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 user disputes, and his need to delete pages.

"I have a feedback page"

“	I refuse to acknowledge you! You're stupid! Stupid Stupid Stupid! StupidStupidStupidStupidStupidStupidStupid!!	”
—Leon Kuwata in Danganronpa - Trigger Happy Havoc

See "A willingness to learn" above. Is having a feedback page useful? Maybe. I myself don't see the point, since 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.

Plus, 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 of SmashWiki (talk•contribs•logs) and his feedback page that can only be accessed on three pages: his failed RfB, and two archives that few people are ever going to page through. Don't act like Joe at Honest Joe's Used Car Dealership: give readers the whole story, free of bullshit.

"I'm a good editor"

“	Take this mop, and shove it, boy, 'cause it's the only way you'll be employed!	”
—Lemon Demon's Hyakugojyuuichi.

This one, I feel, is one that is heavily misused. Candidates keep trying to use their huge xyz project as the reason they deserve adminship, or how xyz shows they can handle 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? Of course 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 need 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 project, 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.

Also, we already have two janitor admins who sit back and barely take part in the user side of matters. We don't need another.

"I have x number of edits"

“	Listen, big boy. Right now, you've won jack-fucking-shit! You've got the audacity to stand there, talking to me about a franchise, when we can't even get a pizza right?!	”
—Gordon Ramsay in Kitchen Nightmares

Edit count means nothing, since it doesn't showcase whether or not your edits were particularly noteworthy in the first place, and it doesn't give the reader any measure of how well you can enforce policy. If a user updates deprecated code on 1000 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. Conversely, Emmett has made only about 2,000 edits since his debut in 2008.

"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 Super Soaker, 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 pad your résumé just smacks of desperation. The actual process to get Rollback is also 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.

"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 an argument that can go either way, but ultimately, it should not be considered a serious factor. 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, you can't hope for an admin to fish you out of your mess. Furthermore, strictly relying on an administrator in hopes of getting 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.

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.

"X user is not active on IRC / Discord"

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

Read above on why IRC / 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 should not strictly reflect experience on the other.

Plus, some of us just don't like Discord.

"X user is mean"

“	What's wrong? Did I hurt your whore feelings?	”
—Audrey Belrose in HuniePop

"Mean" is a very subjective term. On one hand, we 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 is somewhat infamous for his sometimes biting criticism of 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, nor should they immediately run to the nearest admin in every single dispute.

Also, swearing isn't automatically "mean" behaviour. Emmett, who was openly homosexual, took pride in calling himself a "prick fag" on IRC. Got a problem with it? Tough shit, SmashWiki isn't your personal hugbox, nor is it obligated to act as such.

"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 no effect on whether they would be competent with admin tools or not, and again, editors should not allow their expectations of administrators be raised or lowered in response to changes in activity.

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 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 to this day, I have tried to model my own SmashWiki career after his. When his RfA was accepted, there were seven active admins and two semi-active ones. Should we have deprived Pangan of his rightful sysop position just because of this glut of admins? The answer is a resounding no.

"X user would be better as admin"

“	Hi, I'm Al Gore, and I used to be the next President of the United States.	”
—Al Gore

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, not to play the comparison game; and again, adminship is not a contest. If you want Y user to become an admin so badly, then convince them to run; don't denigrate someone for not being your preferred candidate. If I could, I'd vote for HavocReaper48 (talk•contribs•logs) or Mousehunter321 (talk•contribs•logs) to be admins. But they're inactive and I don't foresee them coming back any time soon. Regardless, I'm not going to oppose someone for simply not being Havoc or Mo.

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". 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 know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.	”
—George W. Bush

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 really doesn't like Smash 4. 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; 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 caps that said "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 controversial figures on SmashWiki that attracted quite a bit of heat. BNK. 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.