Mop and Bucket edit
(My RFA)... a few extra buttons on my interface which allow me to take several special actions such as blocking users, deleting and undeleting pages and granting certain privileges. Basically, a regular editor except in circumstances where disruption is present. Any criticism, problems or other grievances can be voiced without fear of retribution - just keep it friendly. As the policy states so well: An administrator is just a user with a mop and a bucket.
Neutral edit
..."plucked from a guide to passing RfA rather than something a lot of thought has gone into". I'm more inclined to favour an admin candidate who wants to work in the areas with less glory. AIV, UAA, AfD
The wiki epistemology edit
is composed of six values: self-identification, collaboration, co-construction, cooperation, trust in the community, and constructionism. By contrast, the values of major current and historical encyclopedias such as Diderot's Encyclopedia, Pliny's Natural History, and the Encyclopædia Britannica prioritize trust in experts, authority, and consistency. September 27 Signpost
Manipulation Among the Arbiters of Collective Intelligence: How Wikipedia Administrators Mold Public Opinion edit
A paper titled "Manipulation Among the Arbiters of Collective Intelligence: How Wikipedia Administrators Mold Public Opinion"[3], to be presented at next month's ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), makes a rather serious claim: "We find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status." This reviewer does not find it shocking, as he has written about this problem years ago. The authors note that those editors are difficult to understand based on their pattern of edits, but are more easily spotted by analyzing the pattern of votes at RfA, through they also suggest that a relatively simple fix may be helpful - simply increase the threshold of success votes required for a successful RfA may increase the quality of the Wikipedia admin corps. One may however quibble with "enforcement of neutrality is in the hands of comparatively few, powerful administrators", another attention-drawing claim in the abstract, that however finds little discussion or support in the body. Discussions about NPOV topics are hardly limited to mop'n'bucket wielders, and thus this claim, and the article abstract, may be exaggerating the importance of the findings. Some admins wait until getting the nearly-impossible-to-remove mop before becoming, well, regular editors. As long as they are not abusing their powers - this reviewer is not sure why should we care. What is more relevant, certainly, is how this entire process shows the inefficiency of the RfA, which forces people to hide behind false "I am perfect" personas, as any sign of being a real person (i.e. making errors, being human, etc.) is often enough to threaten to derail that process. Still, this review is not a place for beating that nearly dead horse - but those interested in the RfA reform process should likely read this article in more detail. Sept 27 Signpost