EAsikingarmager (WMF)

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, EAsikingarmager (WMF). Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

--Turkmen ^talk 16:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential Administrators' Survey FIELD

I want to take the survey. On the page https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/774883 the first question "Please type the word in the box: Wiki". For options ruwiki, ru, ru.wikipedia I get the answer "One or more questions have not been answered in a valid manner. You cannot proceed until these answers are valid". I don't understand what answer is required. Klip game (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Klip game, thanks for your interest in the survey. If you open the survey link and type "wiki" (that text exactly, no other variation), are you able to proceed? Please let me know. Best, EAsikingarmager (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it worked. But it seems to me that it would be correct to indicate this spelling on the page in question. Now it indicates the spelling "Wiki", which is incorrect. Klip game (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's working for you, thanks for your time and contribution. I think both "wiki" and "Wiki" should work. EAsikingarmager (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin survey and research accuracy

Hi. I have been bold and corrected some details in parts of your research in order to reflect accuracy, please don't hesitate to correct me if I was wrong. This research project has engendered much discussion between concerned en.Wiki users, particularly as 2024 has seen the first ever major trials of new processes concerning both becoming an admin, and the removal of admin rank. The research states: This will in turn enable us to identify opportunities for better interventions and support aimed at producing a robust multi-generational framework for editors. That sounds rather vague. As a long-time editor (18 years) and former admin (9 years) who has collaborated very closely with certain WMF developments over the years, (triage, Page Curation, ACPERM, etc.) and initiated and led some local research, my question is: As far as I know, apart from insisting on an electoral system of a kind that involves scrutiny of the candidates, the WMF currently does not 'intervene'. Based on their findings, what kind of WMF 'interventions' or 'robust multi-generational framework for editors' could help the self-governance of the individual Wikipedia projects? Regards, Kudpung (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kudpung, thanks for your message and interest in the project. I hope that the results from this project will help contribute to the productivity of the discussions among concerned enwiki users that you mention.

Thanks for your edits to the project page to improve accuracy, much appreciated. I think part of what happened with this table of candidacy requirements is that for some wikis, like enwiki, there are both formal and informal requirements, so it could be clearer if we distinguished those better. I do notice at the enwiki nominations standards page, there's no formal requirement for email (which is reflected in one of your edits), but the page notes a formal requirement of 500 main namespace edits (part of extended confirmed account requirement). Are you aware if this may be changing, or has already changed?

As for your question about interventions and support, maybe I can add some detail around that sentence to help clarify. Based on the results of the research, we've been asked to deliver recommendations. As backdrop, I should note that at the moment we're very actively working on a final report and figuring out what recommendations stem from these findings. However, I can say tentatively that these recommendations could include a broad range of things; for example, not only recommendations for WMF action/policy (if any), but also may include recommendations for community policies (that communities could consider in light of project results and decide if they wish to take action on), general product recommendations (e.g., are there ways of making the path to adminship more visible and more easily navigable to those whose activity suggests they could be good potential admins?), recommendations for improved data and availability (e.g., are there key metrics around adminship inflow/outflow that would be helpful and safe for communities to have easier access to in order to help form community decisions?). Again, I offer these ideas tentatively, but in the best interest of trying to provide a bit of clarity around the question you ask.

Thanks and best regards, EAsikingarmager (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)