User:CaptainEek/RfA debrief

My RfA passed with a 76%, scraping by the hairs of its chinny-chin-chin. I am glad I did it, but note that it was one of the more stressful weeks of my life. I don't say this to discourage folks, but rather to plainly lay out what is required and what to expect. I probably ran at the earliest possible date I would have passed. Could I have waited 6 months and sailed in (obligatory nautical joke) ? Perhaps, but I think we do ourselves a disservice by forcing ready candidates to wait.

The key factor in passing was that I had an FA under my belt in the form of Cactus wren. I think having at least one FA, or two–three GA's is critical. It shows that you are capable of our core mission: building an encyclopedia. Having two well respected nominators (thanks Barkeep49 and Bradv!) also made a big difference. One's nominators can make a big difference, as not only do they provide gravitas to potential voters, good noms provide to you advice. A good nominator ideally has a feel for the RfA process and can give you personalized, in-depth guidance on what to expect. In some ways, your nominators are like campaign managers, and can make or break.

I also had the benefit of knowing various editors in real life, which WikiConNA2019 gave me the privilege of. I had also worked in various content areas of the encyclopedia, as well as ANI, which had led to me being introduced to many editors on good terms. Cooperating, and showing that one can work well in many areas is most helpful. I had prepared ahead of time by ensuring I had no obvious gaps in my Xtools. Do I think its stupid that xTools and its summary is used as a oppose reason? Absolutely! It says almost nothing about an editor. However, some voters don't do that much research, and it is key to provide as few possible points of objection.

So why did my RfA barely survive? A chief problem was my use of automated editing tools, Huggle the main one. After my RfA I have sworn off Huggle, as it leads to very poor editing and decision making. The gamification that such tools allow ensures that you will make embarrassing mistakes. I fear that an upcoming crop of admins will be similarly burned by RedWarn. A particularly poor edit I had made with Huggle required much explaining and soul searching on my part, and could have been an unmitigated disaster if I had not written a sufficient reply. That edit was very much my fault, and I learned much from it.

Another chief danger is the three months of editing leading up to an RfA. I would try to make those months as problem free as possible. Stay out of trouble. Don't do anything contentious. If you usually edit in an area like politics, get out. Edit in your safety backup area. For me, that is birds, which are almost never contentious. I got bit quite bad by this problem, in that I made an uninformed !vote to unblock a particularly nasty character called CaptainOccam. I had not fully investigated the background, and did not realize the extent of his problems, and simply read an unblock message of his at AN and thought that an unblock seemed reasonable. He didn't get unblocked, and that was good. But my !vote in the matter led to my first oppose in my RfA, from Tony, whom I quite respect. This illustrates the unpredictable dangers of RfA: the bellweather voter, and the pile-on. For better or worse, the public nature of votes means that some voters will scan to find the "big names" and read only those votes. One oppose by a noted editor can undo the supports of many less known editors. While that is not a thing we want in RfA, it inherently is. That is how people work. That fueled a number of oppose votes until the issue was mostly resolved. Well timed and well written responses by both nominee and nominator can help to solve these sorts of crisis. If not tackled promptly, pile-on opposes can easily sink your battleship. We are creatures of social momentum after all.

The final main issue that got brought up was my treatment of AfC drafts. This shows where your past numbers game mistakes can hurt you. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. I had been editing en-masse because I believed that without at least 10k edits I wouldn't become an admin. But honestly, if I had just slowed down, I probably could have made admin with 5k edits, if they had simply been higher quality. I declined various drafts I should have accepted, which is attributable to various problems that are a whole discussion in themselves...AfC needs some reform imo. Once one bad recent decline had been drug up, my entire history of drafts was then picked over with a fine toothed comb. So the lesson here: make every edit count, because any edit could be put under the microscope.

In the end, I have found being an admin to be rewarding work. I learned a lot from my RfA, and changed my editing style significantly due to the feedback I received. Furthermore, the concerns of my RfA were not insurmountable, as I now sit on ArbCom, which I also find rewarding. I think we should encourage more folks to RfA, and encourage more folks to be "bare" about their ambitions. So what are my takeaways?
 * You can choose when to run. Choose to run in a stress-free week. If it is contentious, you will spend 10–30 hours nursing your RfA during that week. Don't do what I did, which was run during finals week my final semester of Uni :P
 * Good nominators are key
 * Your responses to questions can make or break, treat them with respect. I spent upwards of 2 hours writing a single paragraph reply to some questions. It certainly changed the outcome of my RfA.
 * Automated tools are the plague
 * Be on your best behavior in the months leading up to your RfA
 * An FA or several GA's is a must
 * You will be imperfect. The ability to show reflection and indicate the desire to learn is expected!
 * Quality over quantity!!!

And should you ever decide to run, I wish you...Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)