Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-01-01/Interview

Recently selected administrator answers some questions about their Request for Adminship (RfA) which ended on December 21, 2022 with 175 supporters, one neutral, and none opposed. '''1. Congratulations on your unopposed RfA. Why do you think it was so successful?'''


 * Thanks for your congratulations! I believe that among the most significant factors were my nominators, Vanamonde93 and Barkeep49, who are highly regarded by the community and whose words (which I am very thankful for) therefore carry considerable weight. Additionally, I would say that experience gained over time and a clear track record in both content creation and back-end areas were important (not to boast, of course), as opposed to hypothetically spreading myself too thin or prematurely aiming for something for which I was not ready.

2. What made you decide to run for admin and how did you prepare for the process?


 * I had not given adminship serious thought until a few months ago. At that time, I was on the fence because despite having familiarity in some areas, primarily new page patrol and recent changes patrol, I felt that long periods of semi-activity risked putting me out of touch with recent policy changes or otherwise would not inspire confidence in !voters who understandably want active admins. This was also during a three-month period without RfAs (May–August 2022), during which I followed (but did not comment on) threads on the RfA talk page in which this gap and a need for more admins were discussed, which led me to carefully consider my credentials and do an optional RfA candidate poll (ORCP) in September; I sought feedback from longtime editors and RfA regulars to figure out where I was standing.


 * My ORCP was short but went surprisingly well; words of confidence from SandyGeorgia and Vanamonde93 (both on- and off-wiki) – which led to Vanamonde offering a nomination and SandyGeorgia recommending me to Barkeep49 – gave me the clarity and confidence boost to commit to RfA. However, I knew that I would not have time for an RfA until this month due to real-life commitments and also believed that a three-month buffer would be enough time to build a plan with my nominators and nip any potential issues in the bud. This preparation included drafting and revising answers to the three standard questions, pointers on how to conduct myself during the process, and discussing some plausible scenarios so as not to feel overwhelmed or overly surprised during the RfA.

3. How would you describe your experience being a candidate at RfA?
 * In all honesty, I did not expect my RfA to go as smoothly as it did. At some points, I was uncertain about the wording of my responses and whether anything directly challenging the question (above all for Q4 pre-rewording and Q9) would lead to an influx of opposes, but I was relieved when other users commented on these matters, essentially reading my mind. This allowed me to reformulate my responses before posting them, and eased tension built upon my reading of some contentious RfAs in which a single "wrong" answer or "damning diff" could be enough to change the minds of many – especially if there was a deliberate trick in the question – or even sink the RfA altogether. By the halfway point, though, I felt much more relaxed and also somewhat flattered, thanks to the votes of confidence from many experienced users and knowing that my answers were considered satisfactory. While I had also read through very uncontroversial RfAs and realized mine wasn't a statistical outlier in this sense, I wondered until the very end whether my recurring periods of lower activity or relative lack of experience in controversial areas would draw some opposition (I expressed this both at ORCP and in correspondence with my nominators), and therefore was very pleasantly surprised that this was not the case.

4. What do you think of neutral votes like HelpingWorld's?


 * Neutral. It's certainly a fair point for users to have no opinion on a candidate with whom they have not interacted or point to possible inexperience in certain admin areas. Although the onus is typically on the !voter to research the candidate, and it's not uncommon to remain undecided after doing research, I notice that most !voters – even those who don't "know" the candidate, as was the case at my RfA – decide to support or oppose. Along those lines, I'd say that with roles reversed, if I could not decide to support or oppose along similar lines, I would probably abstain rather than !vote neutral unless I felt there was something important to present. Nevertheless, there's nothing harmful about such a neutral !vote, and in principle I feel that neutral !votes can still meaningfully contribute to the discussion at RfA.

5. What suggestions, if any, do you have on how to improve the RfA process?


 * Fundamentally, I agree with the issues highlighted in the 2021 review, and so I would say that anything promoting the idea that "adminship is no big deal" or giving candidates a clearer idea of what to expect when stepping up would improve the process and encourage prospective candidates to run. It's hard to suggest specific improvements, though; the atmosphere of an RfA is inherently unpredictable and some possible solutions to this have been recently rejected. One thing I could suggest would be a detailed statistical analysis of recent RfAs and a compilation of various user criteria to offer greater insight as to what unwritten expectations are for candidates.

6. What do you look forward to most now that you're an admin?


 * Although admin work is generally unglamorous, I look forward to being able to make a dent in administrative backlogs as they appear, and to directly address issues such as copyright infringement and fast-paced vandalism to maintain the integrity of the affected articles. It's really just a few extra buttons to save some steps and time while doing work similar to what I did before, with the same end goal.

7. What advice would you give to an editor considering running for adminship?


 * Adminship is fundamentally about demonstrating trust and proficiency to use additional tools to maintain the high quality of the encyclopedia – as I said before, it's unglamorous work at face value, but it's for the benefit of the project. As such, my advice to you as a prospective admin is to stay focused on a handful of areas in which you are knowledgeable and enjoy working, while avoiding inflating your résumé or collecting hats in preparation for an RfA. I would also say that being undecided about whether to go through RfA is not a bad thing at all – two of the biggest potential pitfalls are overconfidence and power hunger – so I recommend that you open a poll at ORCP or privately contact more experienced editors (ideally someone you "know" on-wiki) and ask them for feedback. If someone offers to nominate you without an explicit request, even better. Lastly, in preparation for the RfA (this is advice from my nominators), don't rush into it: take time to prepare answers for the standard questions, tie up any loose ends in things you've worked on (e.g., ensure your content creations are tidy and updated), and wait until you can fully commit to the RfA before starting it – in the sense of having ample time and being in the right headspace.