User:Ched (public)/RfA

== Ched's de pants briefing ==

Well, let's see here. It was "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....", so my memories may be a bit foggy, but here's my recollections of my RfA. Remember it was back at the end of the 2nd/3rd generation of RfAs, (2009 - back when I was a young man still in my 50s) but here ya go ...

I'd done a fair amount of typo fixing for a couple years before registering an account, but after eventually becoming aware of what it takes to make the sausage, I registered. I was a bit nonplussed when some of my early article work was reverted (truth vs verifiability) leading me to my first AN/I question. Then I tried to add an article about an episode of Stargate SG1 which dealt with sexism. (not enough real world coverage, but I still consider SG1 the poor red-headed stepchild of Star Trek). At this point I didn't see Wikipedia as being a long term project for myself -, my wiki lord and savior (no disrespect to my real world one), magically appeared to me, took me under his wing, and encouraged me to work through it. After a few months months he mentioned that I should edit with a future eye on Adminship, and always take the high road (no comment on my success of that). Then showed up and helped me create my first article, then helped walk me through a DYK. Several months later, provided me with some very valuable insight and guidance, and eventually offered to nom me. (Pedro always had an amazing track record at picking good admins). I decided to try, but I was still going to edit even if it didn't succeed.
 * Background

In the beginning I did have some anxity, but figured I could edit just fine without the tools as well, so the "stress" part of it wasn't major. Shortly before my RfA went public, my daugher called crying that her company's web-site had been hi-jacked, and needed help (I was an IT tech at the time). The "real world" stress suddenly made wiki stress-free for the most part. That's not to suggest that it was carefree, it wasn't, and there were some butterflies throughout the week. The questions didn't really bother me because I figured it was my chance to showcase who I was as a person. However, there were 3 major opposes that concerned me, mainly because they all had validity, and weight, behind them.
 * RfA


 * 1)  I said early in my RfA that I would not be any type of civility crusader, and I suspect that was a red flag for one editor that thought I would be another one of "those %&*@ing WP:CIVILity idiots" in his mind.  I was familiar enough with him to know that he was a highly valued FA contributor, but also that they had a very difficult wiki-past, and had often been a whipping post to many.  The civility topic was a highly contentious topic back then, and the community was very much divided on what was acceptable and what wasn't.  Still, I did respect both his views AND his incredible devotion to high quality writing.  I still to this day think that his FA work was second to none.  Did he ABF?  Perhaps, but I fully understood the why, (and if you're watching - I never did become a "civility cop.")
 * 2) another editor opposed on the grounds of "The focus of user pages should not be social networking".  That was fairly accurate.  While I tend to be a bit shy in person, I do struggle with the online "social butterfly" within myself, even to this day.  I also felt a bit "caught in the act" of "knowing the right people" too.  I admit that when the RfA concept came up, and perhaps even before, I did try to assess the "who's who" of wiki-fifedom.  Still, after my RfA, I did try to tone my irrelevant chit-chat down a bit.  I'd also mention that the NOTSOCIALNETWORK isn't enforced today nearly as much as it was back then.
 * 3) And finally, the hardest for me, even to the point of feeling a bit hurt at the time.  I had honestly been trying to make friends with an editor.  At the time, and to a lesser extent even today, I felt that I was being misunderstood.  They opposed over my posts to their talk page.  The interaction taught me several things: 1. Even though I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, my posts indicated that I was.  Be careful not only in what you say, but how you say it as well.  2. Never assume anything you don't know.  My "aww, Comeon man girl" just doesn't really work well in text. I had (and have) so much respect for this third editor and I think maybe I just tried too hard to ingratiate myself, and perhaps instead just ended up making a fool of myself.

I did have supporters, (who really should be an Admin) stands out in my mind as one of the staunchest supporters and defenders. Some rebuttals escalated a bit in response to one editors comments, and even though I disagreed with the oppose #1 assessment, I did eventually defended his right to oppose without being harassed, and asked that my supporters stand down.

At this point I was resigned to the idea that the RfA could very well tank, and I'd need to ask others for help when faced with vandaals who needed blocked, page protections/deletions and such. I'd seen other RfAs that slowly eroded when a couple well know editors posted some well timed opposes. I also got an email from an admin. asking if this was my website. (it was). A bit disconcerting that someone would do that amount of research, but it wasn't anything I was embarassed about either. Then the opposes seemed to slow up in the middle of "the week", and I had some fantastic supports from some of the big guns: ϢereSpielChequers, SoWhy, Dank, Keegan, Juliancolton, Tiptoety, Mazca, Protonk, Useight and others all had some very nice things to say. The last couple days did have a couple opposes trickle in, mostly of the "per userX" varity, so there was a level of uncertainty to it all.

Fast Forward: I survived, but eventually found the extra buttons weren't all they're cracked up to be. It's so easy to get caught in the middle of things/disputes. And I think most good admins often question themselves about whether or not they've done the right thing. The FA writer who opposed on civility issues did help improve some of the articles I worked on, and I'll still exchange an email or two with him once in a while. I now feel perfectly comfortable emailing, visiting and commenting on the third writer's page, and they've said some very complementary things over time. And even though I haven't seen the non-chatty editor around for a while, IIRC I did visit their talk and told them I'd try to be less "chatty." And to be perfectly honest, my RfA was probably a bit sooner than it should have been, but in retrospect, mine wasn't really so bad.

At the end of the day, my beliefs are this: RfA can range from very easy, to incredibly difficult. A lot will depend on your integrity, and the people you cross paths with. Read through our policies and guidelines, they will come up, and even if you don't memorize them word for word, you'll at least know where to look. Read through the Admin's reading list as well, it's stuff you will need if you get the tools. Have a look at the MOS guidelines as well, at least the top level ones. It's important to know how to write. Write in complete sentences. Be yourself, but avoid the "I kin pwn sum vandals" type of responses.
 * Today

I think the best RfAs are when an editor is open, honest, trustworthy, humble, willing to learn, and consistent in what they say and do. It's also very important that you have a history of treating your fellow editors with respect. However, if your self-worth is going to be dependent on your RfA, if you think you'll quit editing if it fails, then IMO, it's not for you. It's fine to take a break, chill out, decompress afterwards - but it should never be a determining factor in your decision to edit. Yes, it is nice to have the extra tools, very nice, but it's not the be-all-end-all of wiki. Being an editor is what actually drives the wiki-train. I've resigned my tools twice to take a break, and that can be very refreshing as well.


 * And that's the way it is [was in 2009] — Ched (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)