User:WonRyong/Translation/Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship


 * Original - Guide to requests for adminship
 * 이 문서의 원본 - Guide to requests for adminship
 * Guide to requests for adminship
 * 영어판 관리자가 되기 위한 가이드

This is a guide to current practice at Wikipedia's requests for adminship (RfA) process, the mechanism by which editors are considered for administrator status. To become an administrator, there needs to be a clear consensus that you are committed to Wikipedia and can be trusted to know and uphold its policies and guidelines.

For an unprepared user, even a very valuable contributor, the process can be frustrating and disheartening. Under no circumstances should any editor considering acceptance of a nomination construe the contents of this guide as a barrier to nomination. Consequently, no Wikipedian should refer to this guide for the purpose of deterring a candidate from accepting a nomination. This is only a guide to current practice on Requests for adminship, not policy.

For an informal look, please see the miniguide to requests for adminship.

Overview
RfA is the means by which the Wikipedia community develops consensus on whether an editor should be given administrator rights, such as the abilities to delete a page, protect a page, edit a protected page, and block a user.


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;background-color:#eae0ff" width="85%"


 * A glance at the 'requests for adminship' mainpage will quickly reveal that there are no official requirements to becoming a Wikipedia administrator. Anybody can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience. However this does not mean that there are no standards to be aware of.

The reality is that adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, not percentages and numbers, and each user will have their own way to assess candidates' readiness for the role. While anybody can apply, a review of failed RfA's will quickly show that members of the community have many unwritten expectations.
 * }

Common areas where users may have expectations will usually be those that show: Evidence of any concerns may also be raised and questions asked, for reassurance whether they will present concerns in future, and any other signs of helpfulness or work undertaken in the community will be seen positively.
 * 1) breadth and duration of wiki-experience;
 * 2) appropriate approach and conduct as a community member (quality of interaction and ability to work with others); and
 * 3) understanding of the Wikipedia ethos and its most important norms and policies (their "spirit" and intent, and that you understand the norms administrators must follow).

General advice for nominees
The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights. An editor should not construe the outcome of an RfA as praise or condemnation of their efforts as an editor. Instead, it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights.

A RfA is a very open voting process where your record will be looked at by experienced (and sometimes opinionated) users who have already made up their minds about what kinds of people they want as administrators. An RfA is open to everybody, including anyone you may have had disagreements with in the past, as well as new and inexperienced users you may be disagreeing with at the time.

Some users find the level of scrutiny and frankness very difficult. Some editors have left Wikipedia as a consequence of an RfA that has gone poorly. This should not happen, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Wikipedia. There are many fine editors who would not make good administrators.

Things to consider before accepting a nomination
Things that a potential administrator nominee should consider before accepting a nomination include:


 * There is a lot of admin stuff you can do without being an admin! Maybe you are here because you've done several hundred edits and your wiki enthusiasm is now looking for new challenges, new ways to help the wiki.  Well, there are lots of ways in which you can do admin stuff, without being an admin, for example:
 * get involved in Category:Wikipedia maintenance
 * get involved in Category:WikiProjects
 * get involved in Category:Wikipedia backlog
 * get involved in vandalism fixing
 * get involved in translation
 * help newbies


 * There are so many other admin tasks that you can already do that until you really start to find there are things that you cannot do there, there is not much point in trying to become an admin. Indeed, only when you have had a good amount of experience in all the freely available admin tasks are you likely to succeed in an application.


 * RfA can be a harsh process. Your past record will come under scrutiny and any questionable actions can lead to intense open discussion. If you aren't experienced in handling conflicts, this can be distressing. On the other hand, you can take the experience as an opportunity to measure your skills in conflict resolution.


 * Nominees with lower edit counts are less likely to succeed. Many administrator nominations for editors with low edit counts have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with a limited length of time of active experience on Wikipedia can expect similar concerns. If you are unsure if you have enough edits or experience, consider asking another Wikipedian or two that you trust before leaping into an RfA. See this chart comparing edit counts to RFA success rates for June 2005 through March 2006. RFA standards have historically risen over time; for example, the success rate for candidates with between 1000 and 2000 edits is much less today than the 30+% shown in the chart.


 * RfA contributors have differing standards for what they consider to be acceptable administrator candidates. Some of these standards are outlined at Requests for adminship/Standards. RfA voters may also use standards that may seem perverse or irrational. It is generally not well looked upon for the nominee to question the validity or good faith of those standards. But while each RfA contributor may use whatever criteria they wish, you can ask them why they think a criterion is important.


 * Some people who oppose RfAs do not explain their opposition. This does not make their votes inherently worthless. While it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback, RfA contributors are not required to explain their opposition. Some contributors may not wish to explain their rationale because they wish to avoid creating a sense of piling on. If the user opposes your nomination without an explanation, please do not feel offended; it is most likely not personal. By the same token, you should be honest if you are voting on a nomination. Do not be afraid to oppose for fear of hurting the nominee's feelings. It is better to stay out of a nomination instead of voting dishonestly.


 * Ask yourself, "Am I ready to be an administrator?" Administrators can be and often are more involved in contentious disputes than regular editors. If you think you will likely not respond well in such situations, perhaps being an administrator is not for you. Adminship is not a statement of worth or acceptance in the Wikipedia community. Some of the most valued and active editors have said they do not want to be administrators, and many administrators find that they prefer to contribute largely or solely by editing articles.


 * Declining is allowed. Declining a nomination will not be held against you and can show a desirable thoughtfulness; you can always accept a later nomination.


 * Administrator status is not a trophy. Editors who regard being an administrator as an affirmation of their contributions as an editor or an award for good editing or other good service will generally be disappointed. Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Wikipedia. Since many editors believe administrators should follow a more strict code of conduct than the average user, the opposite may occur. Every good-faith editor, from the newest editor to the most experienced bureaucrat, has the same status within Wikipedia. You will not gain respect simply by being an administrator. Adminship is, in essence, janitorial duties for Wikipedia. (Hence the mop used to symbolise administratorship.)

Follow instructions
The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign. If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of WP:RFA, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them.

What RfA contributors look for
RfA contributors want to see a record of involvement and evidence that you can apply Wikipedia policies calmly, maturely and impartially. What are often looked for are:
 * Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles.
 * Varied experience. RfAs where an editor has mainly contributed in one way (little editing of articles, or little or no participation in AfDs, or little or no participation in discussions about Wikipedia policies and processes, for example) have tended to be more controversial than those where the editor's contributions have been wider.
 * User interaction. Evidence of you talking to other users, on article talk or user talk pages. These interactions need to be helpful and polite.
 * Trustworthiness. General reliability as evidence that you would use administrator rights carefully to avoid irreversible damage, especially in the stressful situations that can arise more frequently for administrators.
 * Helping with chores. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as RC Patrol and articles for deletion.
 * High quality of articles. A good way to demonstrate this is contributing to getting articles featured, although good articles are also well-regarded.
 * Observing consensus. A track record of working within policy, showing an understanding of consensus.
 * Edit summaries. Constructive and frequent use of edit summaries is a quality some RfA contributors want to see. Some expect use of edit summaries to approach 100% of the time. See Edit summary.
 * A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior.

These points are not mandatory and there are always exceptions, but if you think back over your contributions and any of these is missing, it may be better to broaden your experience before an RfA.

There are also several other things that contributors will raise, such as whether you have an email address set. This is important for administrators, who may need to be contacted by users who have been blocked from editing.


 * Complete answers to the RfA questions. Curt or uninformative answers to the standard questions are mildly offputting for some RfA contributors. Spend a bit of time preparing your answers; there is no time limit to the acceptance of a nomination.

Some editors have listed their individual rough criteria for support on the RfA standards page.

What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see
No matter how experienced you are, some actions will cause problems. In roughly decreasing order of seriousness, here are some things which, if seen in your edit history, will be raised and thoroughly discussed:


 * Vandalism: A persistent and unreformed vandal will never be made an administrator; one of the primary tasks of administrators is fighting vandalism (and a truly bad administrator could cause serious damage to the site). Even a relatively minor disruption, like making a joking edit to an article, can cause problems.
 * Incivility: If a nominee has responded to unpleasant or irritating users by leaving insulting messages which violate the spirit of civility.
 * Intransigence: If a nominee has ever refused to be involved in good faith efforts to reach consensus on talk pages, and instead engaged in edit wars.
 * Controversial activity on AfD: Voting according to criteria not relevant to the purpose of  AfD, persistently starting AfDs on articles on the kinds of subject generally (let alone explicitly) recognized as worth an article.
 * Abuse of process: If a nominee has ever started an inappropriate RfC, or made seemingly frivolous complaints via official channels.
 * Edit wars: If a candidate is prone to repeating a single edit after it becomes obvious that there is a disagreement with it. To most RfA contributors, it does not matter who is right, it matters how a candidate handles themselves during a debate.
 * "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. Canvassing is often looked down upon.
 * Blocks: If your block log has activity and shows you've been blocked in the past several months.
 * Elaborate signatures: Some have a low opinion of editors who create fancy signatures, especially ones with special characters and images.
 * Long gaps in editing: Unless you have a good reason and you state on your page, a steady edit history is preferred.
 * Use of sockpuppet accounts to avoid scrutiny, or to mislead the community about your past editing history.

However, many RfAs have succeeded despite some of the above. The important factors are:


 * Time. If a nominee has demonstrated high standards of conduct for a few months, the RfA contributors may discount earlier undesirable behaviour.
 * Disclosure. If a nominee brings up past missteps him or herself, and either apologises or explains how such missteps will be avoided in the future, the candidacy will be more likely to succeed.
 * Approach to opposing votes. Responding in a calm, rational, and (if needed) apologetic manner will be to a candidate's credit. A candidate who shows anger or frustration or makes insults when presented with opposition is likely to engender more opposition.

Other controversy
If you have been involved in discussions on very controversial articles, your adminship may be a target for heated objections on the basis of your involvement in those pages. This may reduce your chances of becoming an administrator. In some cases voters may attempt to maintain a "balance of power" across controversial subjects by opposing all potential admins involved on the opposite sides of controversial edit wars.

It may be a good idea for you to highlight the controversy in answering the standard question "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?". You can note how you dealt with the controversy, cite example edits by you and your responses to uncivil comments made by others. In referring others to a past edit it can be useful to provide a "diff", a unique and durable link to a post. To obtain this, click on the "History" tab then right-click (Mac OS X users ctrl-click) on a "last" button for a contextual menu and select "Copy this link location" ("Copy Link to Clipboard"). However, if you have been involved in edit wars (other than against blatant vandalism), or been uncivil on those pages, it may adversely affect your RfA.

One possibility is to start a peer review on yourself, and contact all editors who may have conflicts with you. If you can have all objections raised against you before your RfA, you will be able to better respond to any objection and you can judge your prospects of being made an administrator.

General advice for nominators 추천자에 대한 일반적인 충고
Nominators should be careful in their decision to nominate someone for administrator status.

다른 이를 추천하고자 하는 이는 그 결정을 주의깊게 내려야 합니다.

As noted above, the RfA process can lead to unsavory results.

위에서 언급한 바와 같이, 관리자 선거(RfA) 절차는 불쾌한 결과를 나을 수 있습니다.

A nominator should consider the possibility of the negative impact on a nominee, and ensure they are making appropriate nominations.

추천하는 사람(추천자)은, 추천받는 사람(피추천자)가 받을 수 있는 부정적인 충격의 가능성을 고려해야만 합니다. 그래서, 정말 피추천자가 당선될 가능성이 있는지를 고려해야만 합니다.

A nomination consists of an introductory nomination statement, followed by three questions to be answered by the nominee. When you craft a nomination for someone, including yourself, you should outline in the nomination statement why you think the nominee should be an administrator. You might offer some information on where the nominee has done significant work, areas where the nominee has already helped out with administrator appropriate tasks, how long they have been with the project, and their ability to handle stressful situations. Single-line nomination statements will do little to aid the nominee, and may hinder the RfA.

When nominating someone, it is generally a good idea to ask them if they would like to be nominated before crafting an RfA nomination per the instructions at Requests for adminship/nominate. If the person you want to nominate is willing to accept the nomination, you should place the  YOUR USERNAME  template on their talk page. This provides some basic information on what the nominee should do.

Once the RfA has been created, it is a good idea to work in concert with the nominee to carefully craft the nomination before listing it at WP:RFA. You can advise the nominee on their answers to the questions, fix any errors that might have been made on the RfA either by yourself or the nominee, and generally prepare the RfA for a successful run. Common errors include not formatting the closing date properly, not officially accepting the nomination on the RfA, and the nominee voting for themselves. Poorly prepared RfAs are not looked upon well by RfA contributors as for some this shows a lack of careful attention to process and detail and a lack of respect for the RfA process.

While voting is in progress be ready to answer any enquiries the applicant puts to you, and if the process goes sour consider advising the applicant of the option to withdraw (as Closure below).

Nomination process
The RfA nomination process has evolved and continues to evolve. Years ago, such nominations were an ad hoc assemblage of comments made on a mailing list. Later, the process became more formalized as the WP:RFA page. As time has gone on, efforts have been made to improve the process. The process we have in place now is relatively straightforward.

Before nomination
Either you or another editor may nominate you to be an administrator. Anyone can be an administrator, and anyone can nominate a candidate. However, keep in mind that nominees who have not been on Wikipedia for very long are not necessarily well regarded, as they are less likely to perform effectively as administrators and they are not widely known by RfA voters. It's considered good practice to approach the nominee first to find out whether he would accept the nomination.

To nominate yourself, follow the instructions as they are outlined at Requests for adminship/nominate. For someone else to nominate you, they likewise follow the appropriate instructions on that page. If you have been nominated, then again follow the instructions on that page. Once, by following the instructions, an RfA has been transcluded (i.e. posted) to WP:RFA, the nomination is open for discussion. RfA subpages should not be commented on before being posted to RfA, nor should votes be cast on the RfA subpage until the nomination is posted to the RfA page.

Administrator nominees should move slowly in this process. There is no deadline, and no need to rush. It is better to get it right than to move too quickly and make errors.

During the nomination
An RfA remains open for seven days, beginning from when the nomination is posted to WP:RFA. RfA contributors will make comments when they wish. Occasionally, RfA contributors add on additional questions to the standard three questions that currently are part of every RfA. Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer these questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the seven days it is open can harm the chances of success. While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator. Poor behavior by an RfA candidate will generally have negative consequences.

Closure
Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a bureaucrat will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date. Do not remove your own RfA from WP:RFA unless you are intentionally withdrawing your nomination from consideration.

Currently, there is an open-ended debate regarding whether a nomination that is going poorly should be removed from WP:RFA. There is no standard by which such nominations are removed, nor any consensus on whether they should be removed. Nevertheless, some bureaucrats and other parties occasionally do remove RfAs that are going poorly. You should not take offense if this happens; it is being done to protect you from ill will that may be generated by the RfA. If you did not wish to have your RfA prematurely removed, you may petition the person who removed it to reinstate it. You may find who removed the RfA by reviewing the page history of WP:RFA.

If you would like to withdraw your nomination after it has opened, you may do so simply by editing the RfA to strike out your acceptance of the nomination and indicating your desire to withdraw instead. To do this, place before your nomination acceptance, a closing after your acceptance, and indicate your desire to withdraw. This might look like this:


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. I withdraw my nomination.

If you'd like, you may remove the RfA from WP:RFA on your own, but you are not required to do so. If you do so (though again you are not required to), you should edit the RfA after you have removed it from WP:RFA and place   at the very top of the page,    at the very bottom of the page, remove the entire line that contains the "vote here" link and replace it with Final, change the ending date to the date you withdrew, and update the final tally of votes. Additionally, you should edit Unsuccessful adminship candidacies appropriately to include your nomination. The date you should use on that page is the date you withdrew.

Consider not posting "thanks for voting" messages to the voters' talk pages. This is unneeded and probably not a good use of your time. Consider posting a thanks message instead on your own talk page and/or the talk page of your RFA page instead.

If you disagree with consensus 만약 당신이 컨센서스 결과에 동의하지 않는다면
It is the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus when closing a request for adminship.

관리자 선거(RfA)가 종료되면, 컨센서스가 형성되었는지의 판단은 뷰로크랫이 합니다.

As RfA is not a straightforward majority vote, there is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity.

RfA는 다수결 투표에 의해 바로 결정되지 않습니다. 정교한 가결정족수 부결정족수가 없습니다. 뷰로크랫은 의심스러운 표는 계산하지 않을 수도 있습니다.

However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support.

그러나, 대략의 가이드로서, 당신은 75% 지지를 넘으면, 관리자가 될 것입니다.

Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

70% 미만의 지지를 얻은 후보자는 관리자가 될 가능성이 적습니다. 예외적인 경우에는 예외가 있습니다.

If you feel that a nomination is wrongfully declared as unsuccessful, you may petition the bureaucrat who made the decision.

만약 당신이 선거결과에 불응한다면, 그 결정을 내린 뷰로크랫에 대해 탄원할 수 있습니다.

This can usually be determined by looking at the page history of WP:RFA and seeing which bureaucrat removed the RfA from the page.

....

Bureaucrats do have the option of extending RfAs where they think this is necessary.

뷰로크랫은 선거가 연장되어야 한다고 생각하면, 연장을 할 수 있습니다.

Another possibility is to wait for some time and either renominate yourself or have someone else nominate you for a second time.

또다른 가능성은, 시간을 기다렸다가, 다시 자신을 추천하여 선거에 나오던가, 아니면 다른이가 다시 당신을 추천하여 선거에 나오는 경우가 있습니다.

Many current administrators did not pass their first nomination, yet had a later nomination easily succeed.

많은 현재의 관리자들은 그들의 첫번째 선거에서 실패하였습니다. 그러나, 나중의 선거에서는 쉽게 성공하였습니다.

In some cases, an administrator nominee has tried more than twice.

어떤 경우에, 관리자 선거를 두 번 이상 시도한 경우가 있습니다.

In one case, a nominee tried seven times.

한 경우에는, 7번이나 선거에 재도전 하여 관리자가 된 경우가 있습니다.

Your first nomination is not your only chance to become an administrator.

당신의 첫번째 선거는 관리자가 되기 위한 유일한 기회는 아닙니다.

Bureaucrat nominations 뷰로크랫 입후보
Bureaucrat nominations (RfB) are also considered on WP:RFA.

뷰로크랫 선거절차(RfB)도 또한 관리자 선거절차WP:RFA를 따릅니다.

Bureaucrats are at present responsible for three tasks:

현재, 뷰로크랫은 세가지 업무에 대한 책임이 있습니다:

determining consensus on RfA and RfB and granting rights on successful nominations, answering requests to change usernames, and assigning bot flags.


 * 1. RfA와 RfB에 대한 컨센서스가 형성되었는지를 판단하고 컨센서스가 형성되었으면 권한을 부여함
 * 2. 사용자 이름 변경 요청에 대한 조치
 * 3. 봇 플래그를 달아주는 권한

The RfB process is similar in nearly all respects to the RfA process with a few exceptions:

RfB 프로세스는 RfA 프로세스와 거의 같습니다만, 다음의 예외가 있습니다:


 * Bureaucrat nominations are generally done only by request of the nominee.
 * 뷰로크랫 입후보자는 일반적으로 후보자 자신의 요청에 의해서 등록됩니다. 다른 이들의 추천이 아님.
 * The bar for determination of consensus for acceptance as a bureaucrat is higher than for an administrator.
 * 뷰로크랫 선거에 대한 컨센서스 여부의 판단기준은 관리자 선거의 경우 보다 까다롭습니다.
 * Bureaucrat nominees typically undergo significantly more scrutiny than an administrator nominee.
 * 뷰로크랫 후보자는 관리자 후보자 보다 훨씬 정밀하게 조사됩니다.
 * Bureaucrat nominees are expected to be fully aware of current debates around RfA and of its guidelines.
 * 뷰로크랫 후보자는 현재 진행중인 관리자 선거에 대한 토론들과 그 가이드라인을 완전히 숙지하고 있을 것이 요구됩니다.

As a result of the higher level of consensus required, almost half the requests for bureaucrat status have been rejected, whereas more requests for adminship are approved.

더욱 엄격한 수준의 컨센서스가 요구됩니다. 그래서, 거의 신청자의 절반 정도가 거부됩니다. 관리자 신청은 훨씬 잘 승인되는 편입니다.

What is often looked for by RfB contributors

 * A strong participation in requests for adminship, with sensible rational reasoning for opinions.
 * History of productive administrator work, especially with regards to determining consensus (e.g. in XfDs).
 * Civility.
 * A good record as an administrator.
 * A need for bureaucrats.
 * A full understanding of what consensus to promote is, and understanding of when to and when not to promote under extraordinary circumstances.
 * A good record of providing clear reasoning for their actions.

Re-adminship
Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA unless prohibited from doing so by an arbitration remedy.

Admins who resigned voluntarily, under uncontroversial circumstances, can ask to skip RfA. Upon a review to confirm that the user both was in good standing at the time of the de-adminship and is in good standing currently, a bureaucrat may restore access rights. If there is any question that reinstatement would lack community consensus, the user will be referred to RfA. The guiding principle for such decisions, per WP:CRAT, is that bureaucrats may grant adminship only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community.

See also 더 보기

 * Administrators 관리자
 * Administrators' how-to guide 관리자가 하는 업무에 대한 가이드
 * Administrators' reading list 관리자가 읽어야 할 문서 목록
 * Requests for adminship 관리자가 되기 위한 요청(관리자 선거)
 * Getting the most out of a request for adminship
 * Requests_for_adminship/Template/Cheatsheet