User:Yngvadottir/A somewhat contrary guide to running for adminship

So you're running for admin. Or thinking about doing so. You should definitely read Advice for RfA candidates. And there are some excellent advice pages and lists of personal criteria linked at the bottom of that page. But based on my rather unusual RfA and some observations at RfA since then, I'd like to offer a bit of a different take. TL/DR: Your RfA is about you.

Most RfA voters don't know you. Your task is to impress them as someone they can trust with the mop. It has been compared to a job interview&mdash;but people interviewing for jobs usually lie, or at least exaggerate some things and leave out other things. These are not good ideas at RfA: you're requesting to be appointed to a position of trust, so you don't want to demonstrate that you can't be trusted, and you're being "interviewed" by people self-selected for their ability to research, and their ability to parse written evidence, and who have a vast database at their fingertips that can be massaged to yield a humongous amount of information about you. If you have skeletons in your closet, decide in advance whether to mention them, and how you will respond if someone else mentions them first. Don't equivocate.

A better comparison might be selling a house. House sellers&mdash;or their agents&mdash;repair and paint so that the house is in good condition, make the front garden neat and inviting for "kerb appeal", and ruthlessly tidy inside so that it looks as good as possible. You want to similarly repair any defects that RfA voters will see when they scrutinise you, such as: remedying a lack of article creations, fixing templated issues in the articles you have created, making sure you have at least 6 months since you were last sanctioned for edit warring or other misbehaviour, and also making sure you have at least 6 months of good participation in venues where you demonstrate your knowledge of policy and your ability to discuss issues with fellow Wikipedians, such as AfD, help pages, article talk page discussions, and noticeboards. (Yes, you should also make sure both your user page and your signature are friendly.) Where the analogy breaks down is that you shouldn't be transforming yourself temporarily, as when a house is "shown" empty except for tasteful rented furniture. If you have a problem past, RfA voters will be looking for signs that you turned over a new leaf some time ago. They will open the kitchen and bathroom cabinets, flip the light switches, and look for signs of an old ceiling leak under that fresh coat of paint. They will ask questions that are the equivalent of testing the wiring and the plumbing. Remember, it's a vast project, and it's unlikely that many of them will already know you. They're looking to see whether they like the cut of your jib.

The ideal RfA voter would personally scrutinise each candidate's edit record, with an open mind. In practice, most rely heavily on the RfA itself. This includes other voters' reports of their research on the candidate, but the most important factor is how you, the candidate, come off to them. This starts with the nominators' statements and your answers to the three standard questions. The first voters, except those who happen to know your work already, will be going entirely by those. They shouldn't contradict each other (!) and they should make it clear why you and your nominator(s) believe you would make a good admin. Your answers (and if possible the nominations too) should also demonstrate that you can write correct and effective English, because communication is an important part of the admin job, and because writing is most of what we do here. This continues to be an important factor in all your other responses during the RfA; but so does how you come off as a person. Remember, the majority of the voters don't know you. In your responses to further questions, they will be looking not only at whether you know policy (or can look it up!) but at how you think "on the fly": do you jump to conclusions or get easily annoyed; what options do you consider; do you show "clue"; do you seem like a person they can trust?

This goes for tactical decisions, too. How do you interact with opposers? If you are asked an objectionable question, what do you do? The conventional advice is to let your nominators deal with a lot of that, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring to see a candidate demonstrate their mettle by themselves saying "I'm not going to answer that question" or themselves responding to opposers and showing they can respond to criticism without badgering. The Advice for RfA candidates cautions against using humour. I wisecracked all through mine, because that's who I am. Most advice recommends you concede if the RfA has gone bad; but I'd rather see you stick it out and show us why we should support you. RfAs last one week for the same reason AfDs (initially) do: not everyone edits Wikipedia full-time, and it takes a while to research something&mdash;or somebody. You've already "bothered" us by running; consider giving those who haven't yet voted a chance to make up their minds. Many an RfA has started off great and then tanked&mdash;often but not always because the candidate concealed something problematic&mdash;but several have also headed down and then up again. Consider before you run: being an admin is not all roses. It involves a lot of thankless tasks and a lot of brickbats. Yes, it's painful to have your editing record torn apart at RfA. If you still want the job, roll up your sleeves and show the critics you deserve it. It's ultimately your decision: we do not only need rhinoceri (rhinocerodoi??) in the admin corps, so if your hide is not armoured but you still think you could help Wikipedia as an admin, work with your nominator(s) in advance so that your record is as unimpeachable as possible. But I hope whatever your strategy, you stick it out and make the sale get a mop shoved into your hand.