사용자:Kwj2772/관리자 선거에 대한 도움말

이 문서는 관리자 선거에 대한 도움말입니다. 이 문서는 정책이나 지침이 아닙니다. 다만 관리자 선거 과정에서 참고해야 하는 점을 문서로 남겨봅니다.

후보자에 대한 도움말

관리자 선거 과정은 후보자의 인기나 편집자로서의 권위를 평가받는 것이 아닙니다. 단지 후보자가 관리자가 될 자질이 있는지를 평가하는 것 뿐입니다. 사용자는 관리자 선거의 결과를 후보자의 편집자로서의 노력에 대해 칭찬하거나 나무라는 것으로 여겨서는 안 됩니다. 단지 관리자 권한을 적절하게 행사할 수 있을지에 대해 평가하는 것일 뿐입니다.

관리자 선거는 여러 사용자가 후보자 당신의 기록을 검토하여 참여하는 열린 토론입니다. 관리자 선거에서는 당신과 의견이 맞지 않았던 사용자나 새로 온 사용자들도 선거에 참여할 수 있습니다.

어떤 사용자는 선거에 대해 너무 민감하게 반응하기도 합니다. 어떤 사용자는 관리자 선거의 결과를 가지고 위키백과를 떠나 버리기도 했습니다. 이는 일어나지 말아야 합니다. 관리자 선거는 위키백과에서 사용자의 가치를 평가하는 게 아니기 때문입니다.

선거 전에 생각해 봐야 할 점

관리자 선거에 출마하기 전에 다음 사항을 한번 생각해보십시오.

• 관리자가 되지 않고도 할 수 있는 일은 많습니다. 당신이 수천 개의 기여를 하였고 당신의 위키에 대한 열정이 새로운 도전을 하게 하기 때문에 여기 있을 지도 모릅니다. 하지만 관리자가 되지 않고도 관리를 하는 방법은 상당히 많습니다. 예를 들면

• 분류:위키백과 관리 관리하기
• 분류:위키백과 정비 정비하기
• 위키프로젝트에 참여하기
• 문서 훼손 대처하기
• 번역 참여하기
• 새로운 사용자를 도와주기

관리자가 되지 않더라도 할 수 있는 일은 많습니다. 이를 통해 많은 경험을 쌓는다면 관리자 선거에서 당선될 수 있을 것입니다.

• 관리자 선거는 혹독한 과정이 될 수 있습니다. 당신의 과거의 행동이 평가 대상이 될 수 있고, 어떤 문제점이라도 토론의 대상이 될 수 있습니다. 당신이 분쟁을 조정하는 데 경험이 부족하다면 이 또한 결격 사유가 될 수 있습니다. 분쟁 상황을 원만하게 조정할 수 있는 경험을 쌓으시길 바랍니다.

• 편집 횟수가 적으면 당선되지 못할 수 있습니다. 그렇지 않은 경우도 있지만 편집 수가 적은 많은 사용자가 관리자 선거에서 탈락하였습니다. 편집 횟수가 많지 않다면, 왜 자신이 좋은 관리자가 될 수 있는지 설명하는 것이 좋습니다. 위키백과에 온 지 얼마 되지 않은 사용자도 이런 문제를 겪을 수 있습니다. 확신이 서지 않는다면 다른 사용자에게 의견을 구해보십시오.

• 자신이 관리자가 될 준비가 되었는지 스스로 질문해보십시오 관리자는 일반 사용자에 비해 분쟁 상황에 더욱 많이 관여하게 됩니다. 당신이 분쟁 상황을 잘 조정할 자신이 없다면 관리자가 되지 못할 수도 있습니다. 관리자가 된다는 것이 위키백과 공동체가 당신을 인정한다는 뜻으로 받아들이지 마십시오. 좋은 사용자가 관리자가 되지 않으려 하기도 하는데, 이는 순수하게 문서를 편집하는 것을 즐기는 사용자들이 대부분입니다.

• 관리자는 특별한 권위를 가지지 않습니다. 관리자 권한에 대해 위키백과 편집자로서의 기여에 대한 보상이라고 생각하지 마십시오. 관리자 권한은 위키백과 내의 서열을 의미하지 않습니다. 많은 사용자들은 다른 사용자보다 엄격한 규칙을 지켜야 한다고 생각하기 때문에 초보 사용자이든 사무관이든 위키백과 내에서의 서열은 존재하지 않습니다. 따라서 단지 관리자가 되는 것으로 존경을 받지는 않을 것입니다. 관리자 권한은 위키백과에서 관리를 위한 도구에 지나지 않습니다. 그래서 빗자루가 관리자를 상징하는 상징물로 사용됩니다.

투표자가 선거 과정에서 고려하는 점

관리자 선거에 참여하는 사용자는 후보자의 자질을 판단하기 위해 여러 가지 자료를 확인합니다. 많은 사람이 판단하는 데 쓰는 기준은 다음과 같습니다.

• 많은 문서 편집 위키백과 문서에 대한 많은 기여를 기준으로 삼기도 합니다.
• 다양한 경험 많은 사용자들이 다양한 경험을 해 본 사용자가 다양한 경험을 하지 못한 사용자보다 문제를 덜 일으킬 것이라고 생각하는 경향이 있습니다.
• 의사소통 능력 다른 사용자와 의사소통을 보고 판단할 수도 있습니다. 의사 소통은 상대에게 도움을 주면서도 예의를 갖추어야 합니다.
• 믿을 수 있는지의 여부 당신을 믿을 수 있는지에 대한 생각은 당신이 관리자로 적합한 지에 대한 직접적인 기준이 됩니다.
• 잡일 처리 당신이 관리자가 되어서 얼마나 일을 잘 수행할 지에 대한 판단으로 작용할 수 있습니다.
• 편집 요약 사용 편집 요약을 잘 사용하는 것이 선거 참여자가 바라는 것일 수 있습니다.
• 깨끗한 차단 기록 당신이 바르게 행동해 왔는지에 대한 척도로 작용합니다.

이러한 점은 필수적인 게 아니며 예외가 있을 수 있습니다. 다만 여기에서 부족한 점이 있다면 관리자 선거를 치르기 전에 보완하는 것이 좋습니다. 또다른 기준이 있을 수 있다는 사실을 명심하십시오.

관리자 선거에서 피하여야 할 의견

관리자 선거에서의 반대 의견

관리자 선거에서 반대 의견을 표명할 때는 구체적으로 왜 관리자가 되어서는 안 되는지 설명해 주십시오. 구체적으로 설명을 해 주어야 도움이 될 수 있습니다.

위키 밖에서의 행동

위키백과 밖에서의 활동은 일반적으로 관리자 선거에서 고려되는 사항은 아닙니다. 위키백과에서 생산적인 기여를 한다면 위키 밖의 일은 그렇게 중요하지는 않습니다.

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – user was rude to me on IRC. Mr. Offended 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – I know this user and they are great. GoodFriend 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

In extreme cases, or where it may provide useful information in addition to a comment based on the user's contributions to Wikipedia, off-wiki activities can be of interest.

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – user has threatened on a bulletin board [1] to delete the main page and block every user in London if they become an administrator. BoardInLondon 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – in addition to their great work on Wikipedia, the user has an exemplary record as an administrator on ThisProminentSite.[2] ProminentSiteUser 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

User supports/opposes X

If a comment in support or opposition relies on a user's support or opposition to a particular issue, it is particularly useful to make clear why this may affect their suitability to be an administrator.

A candidate may have a strong opinion on a topic but can be trusted not to abuse admin tools to further their philosophy. For example, many administrators with opinions which could be described as "inclusionist" or "deletionist" only make deletions in the most obvious and uncontroversial of cases, where reasonable editors are highly unlikely to disagree with their actions.

The question should be whether a candidate can be trusted not to let personal opinions lead to an action that is against consensus or policy.

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – user disagreed with me in an AFD debate. ABitDisagreeable 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – this user gave a really witty response to someone I disagreed with. EasilyImpressed 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – user has stated that they believe the criteria for speedy deletion should be broadened, and that they will interpret the guidelines that way anyway.[3] StickToThePolicies 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – user has been very active in the debate on our usage of fair use images; even though I do not agree with their position, their reasoned approach shows that they can keep a cool head in a heated discussion.[4] KeepACoolHead 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

User is X

If a user can't change something, it is almost never helpful to bring it into a discussion.

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – even though they are a great contributor, user is only twelve years old so they couldn't be a good administrator. Patronizer 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – user is from Wisconsin, and we need more administrators from Wisconsin. ILOVEWISCONSIN 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

If you are tempted to leave a comment like this, consider whether you could leave a comment based solely on the merits of the user's activities on Wikipedia.

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – even though they are in their thirties, the contributor keeps playing immature jokes, removing text from articles,[5] [6] and redirecting them inappropriately.[7] StraightFace 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – user is from Wisconsin, and has been the core of the Wisconsin WikiProject, helping new users[8] and initiating discussions on policies.[9] WisconsinIsGreat 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Exactly what she said!

Sometimes, a user has already expressed your exact thoughts on an RfA, and in these cases it's reasonable to state that you fully agree with them. On other occasions, you might find yourself in broad agreement with various points made, and in these instances, it's very useful if you state exactly which points you agree with (and any with which you disagree).

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – as per most of what they said above. Agreeable 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – agree. VeryAgreeable 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – User:0003 makes a good point about the candidate's lack of experience in deletion debates, while User:0005 highlights their tendency to get into long arguments on talk pages. However, I don't agree with User:0005 when they say that the candidate has too few edits in the user talk space—what has that got to do with being an administrator? ReadTheDiscussion 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose and particularly agree with User:ExampleJ, User:ExampleK and User:ExampleL in their evaluation of the candidate. InformedSupporter 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Must have 10,000 edits, three featured articles...

Users often gain useful experience as they rack up edits. Particular contributions, such as involvement with a WikiProject, participation in various processes such as FAC, AFD and RFA, or discussion on talk pages, can not only give the user experience which will prove useful as an administrator, but also enable you to determine whether they are likely to prove trustworthy with the tools.

At the top of the comments section of each RfA, it reads "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/..." Snap decisions based on the number of edits, whether overall or in a particular namespace, work on featured articles or in discussions, without taking into account the quality of these and other contributions and their relevance to adminship are not helpful. If you are tempted to leave a comment along these lines, consider whether you can take the time to check out their edits.

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – user only has ten Wikipedia talk: namespace edits which isn't nearly enough. TalkTalkTalk 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – user has worked on five articles which are now featured, so they must be good. FACFan 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – user states that they want to focus on deletion, but they have only commented in two AFDs, and they didn't seem to understand the process.[10] [11] Ms.Deletionist 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – the user has not only worked on five featured articles,[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] but has engaged in constructive discussion about them, and has many good contributions to the project namespace.[17] [18] [19] AnotherFACFan 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Doesn't need the tools

Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.

While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.

Editors who work with a certain process (e.g. AfD) may feel that any admin candidate must be experienced with that process. However, most editors focus on only a few types of contributions to Wikipedia, doing little or nothing in other areas, and for any given process, a substantial percentage of existing admins have no involvement with it. There are few, if any, processes, besides editing and interacting with other editors, that a potential admin absolutely must know.

도움이 되지 않는 발언

Example: Oppose – user sometimes disappears for a month at a time. Ever-presentEditor 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Oppose – user says they are mostly interested in deletion and don't intend to get involved with blocking vandals. TheBlocker 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

도움이 되는 발언

Example: Oppose – user has no experience of any deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted in this field. JudgeByExperience 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Example: Support – even though the user has little experience of dealing with vandals, their contributions to various talk page discussions[20] [21] [22] convince me that they can be trusted with the tools. ATrustee 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

Self-nominations

 Wikipedia:Why Self-Nominated RfA Candidates Could be more Competent 문서를 참고하십시오.

Many excellent users are ready to take on administrator tasks, yet for whatever reason have not been nominated by another editor. Wikipedia will only get better if it has additional effective, balanced, experienced administrators. If a candidate has demonstrated clearly that they have what it takes to be an administrator, then the sooner they become an administrator, the better for everyone. Thus, many people believe it is counter-productive to oppose a candidate based solely on the fact that the candidate is self-nominated. However, some users do not agree with this and hold a self-nomination to a higher standard than a non-self-nomination.

Editcountitis

It is unhelpful to keep counting beans once you know that you have plenty to eat.

One of the more problematic "arguments to avoid" is the improper use of the number of edits (usually determined by looking at the results from an edit counter). Certainly an editor with only 100 edits is too inexperienced to be an administrator. But the negation argument—that a lot of edits is needed to really know Wikipedia (and that this is critical for adminship)—has two different problems:

• First, a very high number of edits isn't a guarantee of trustworthiness. There are editors with tens of thousands of edits who have been blocked dozens of times, as evidenced by their block logs. There are also editors with many thousands of edits who have racked these numbers up by using semi-automated tools such as AWB to revert vandalism and issue warnings, something that (while valuable) requires neither editing skills nor much interaction with users (Wikipedia vandals typically are of the hit-and-run type). Similarly, it's possible to do huge numbers of edits in a matter of days (if one puts in the time) to post "welcome" messages to the thousands of people who register every day, with very little further interaction. In short, the quality of edits needs to be taken into account—a participant who does not consider an editor's contributions in detail should not simply support a candidate based on a high edit count.

• Second, setting an arbitrary threshold—say, 3000 or 4000 or 5000 edits—as a "minimum" to demonstrate experience penalizes candidates (and discourages potential candidates) who spend significant time improving articles and creating new ones. Finding sources and exercising good editorial judgment takes time, and while Wikipedia needs vandal fighters and fixers of typos and editors who tag problems, the true value of Wikipedia comes from those who improve the encyclopedia by adding content and (where appropriate) new articles. It's difficult to validly judge the quality of a candidate by looking at disambiguation pages or double redirects that he/she has fixed; it's much easier if the candidate has been a significant contributor to articles (particularly controversial ones) where he/she has had to interact and explain and make a case for changes.

In short, an RFA participant who looks only at the total edit count may well get a wrong impression of the candidate's contributions. To say something meaningful about the candidate, it's important to look at the contributions themselves, not just their number or distribution (as discussed in the next section). And certainly a decision to support or oppose a candidate should never be based solely on edit count.

One final twist on editcountitis is concluding that the candidate is experienced enough but arguing against the candidate based on edits per month: that "this candidate doesn't contribute frequently enough". For all practical purposes, everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer; it's inappropriate to demand a certain level of contribution from anyone. If a candidate can benefit the project by using their admin tools for just 10 minutes a week, that's 10 minutes more of useful admin work that Wikipedia gets that it otherwise would not.

Namespace balance

Different tasks generate different numbers of edits in different namespaces. Someone who spends a lot of time reverting vandalism or tagging unused non-free images will have a disproportionately high number of user talk edits because these actions, properly done, include adding warning templates to user page.

Sometimes a candidate receives opposition based on the balance of edits between the various namespaces. The extreme (and most problematic) of such arguments is that the candidate fails to have the appropriate balance—a desirable percentage in Wikipedia namespace (policy understanding), mainspace (article editing), user space (user interaction), and talk space (working constructively with other editors), for example. Sometimes this argument involves parts of namespace: AfD discussions, RfA discussions, etc.

There are at least three problems with this type of opposition:

• First, counts in a namespace can come from a variety of things: a high amount of Talk edits may be an indication of experience interacting with users, or simply automated tagging for WikiProjects. A high number of User Talk postings may be dealing with problematic editors (a challenging matter to do well) or posting vandalism warnings to mostly anonymous IP talk pages (not so challenging, though still needed). Postings to Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk pages may be helpful, or simply chattiness; RfA and AfD postings may be insightful or simply "me too" postings.

• Second, demonstrating a particular skill (interacting with other editors, for example) can be demonstrated in several different namespaces, including user talk pages, article talk pages, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk pages. Similarly, demonstrating the ability to understand policy (and make good arguments about it) can be demonstrated in a number of places, not all in the same namespace. In short, namespaces and skills are not the same, so failure to have many edits in a single namespace proves very little, if anything.

• Third, editors contribute to Wikipedia in many different ways. Helping with copyright problems with images is different than identifying problems with new articles, and both are different than helping mediate disputes among editors, yet all three are things that demonstrate valuable skills that are important to an administrator. Wikipedia administrators are not required to be good at everything; in fact, most administrators tend to focus on what interests them: they're not being paid, of course; why work on what is tedious or uninteresting?

It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done nothing in an area that may be considered a basic: editing, working with other editors, or understanding something about Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal" candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Wikipedia of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they have to do.