Wikipedia:Administrators: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:22, 27 January 2008

Administrators, commonly known as admins and also called sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have access to technical features that help with maintenance. English Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community. They can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well. These privileges are granted indefinitely, and are only removed on request or under circumstances involving high-level intervention (see administrator abuse below). Administrators undertake additional responsibilities on a voluntary basis, and they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. While the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with, if not used properly, very harmful tools.

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.

Request assistance - Full list of administrators - Requests for adminship

Administrator tools

The wiki software has a few important features that are restricted. The tools cover restricted processes including page deletion, page protection, blocking and unblocking, and access to modify protected pages and the mediawiki interface.

Details of these, and comments on their use, are listed at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.

Adminship

No big deal

Shortcut

WP:DEAL

An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in February 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

Becoming an administrator

If you are interested in becoming an admin, you should read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. After that, you can add your nomination to the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship according to the instructions on the nomination page. A discussion will take place among fellow editors about whether you should become an administrator. After seven days, a bureaucrat will determine if there is consensus to give you admin status.

You should become familiar with Wikipedia by editing for a while before requesting or accepting a nomination for administrator status; you need to know what you are doing, and other users will need to recognize you in order to agree on trusting you with admin tools. Keep in mind that each language's Wikipedia has its own policies for administrators, which may differ from this (the English) Wikipedia.

Although multiple user accounts are allowed on Wikipedia in general, only one account of a given person should have administrative tools.

Be careful, please! If you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these functions, especially the ability to delete pages and the ability to block IP addresses. You can learn how to do these things at the Administrators' how-to guide and the new administrator school. Please also look at the pages linked from the Administrators' reading list before using your administrative abilities. Administrators and all other users with extra tools are expected to have a strong password, to prevent damage in the case of a compromised account. (See also Wikipedia:Security.)

If you have exercised your right to vanish, and return under a new name, your new name can request administrator access by contacting a bureaucrat privately and producing satisfactory evidence of being the same user, provided you did not originally request desysopping under controversial circumstances. This will not guarantee privacy, however, as new accounts which are granted sysop rights without an RfA tend to attract attention and speculation.

Administrator conduct

Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However in general they are expected to act as role models within the community, and a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters, is expected.^{[1] [2] [3]} When acting as administrators, they are also expected to be fair, exercise good judgement, and give explanations and be communicative as necessary.

Administrators who seriously or persistently acts in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:

Misuse of tools (deletion, protection, blocking in clearly improper circumstances)
Breach of basic policies (attacks, edit warring, biting/civility, privacy, etc)
Repeated/consistent poor judgement
Fighting with the tools (known as "wheel warring")
Failure to communicate ^{(Eg: [4])} - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
'Bad faith' adminship (sock use, good hand/bad hand, gross breach of trust^[5], etc)
Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off site attacking, etc)

Places where administrators in particular can assist

Administrator rights can be particularly helpful for working in certain areas of Wikipedia.

Incidents that may require admin intervention
Three-revert rule violations
Intervention against vandalism
Copyright problems (advice for admins)
Candidates for speedy deletion
Administrative backlog
Enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions
Administrators will also find their tools useful for Recent changes patrol.

Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")

If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges.

Misuse of tools

Misusing the tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common types of misuse to avoid:

Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute - Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

Communal norm/policy - When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, without a clear explanation showing that the matter has been considered and why a (rare) exception is genuinely the best answer.

In most cases even when tools are reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This is a matter of judgement if necessary.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user as an administrator (ie to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, or the like) or whose actions on the article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, are usually not considered prevented from acting on the article or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases, or if they wish to be absolutely sure no concerns will "stick" in exceptional cases, a decision best left to their own judgement.

Removal of adminship

Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers. Currently, administrators may be removed either at the request of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with stewards.

There have been alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status, but none of them have achieved consensus. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 In most cases even when tools are reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This is a matter of judgement if necessary.
-One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user ''as an administrator'' (ie to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, or the like) or whose work on an article was ''non-contentious'' or ''does not speak to bias'' (eg spelling, fix obvious errors, neutral refactoring, style issues, non-contentious edits, "once off" edits) is usually ''not'' considered to be prevented from continuing to deal with the editor in question. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases, or if they wish to be absolutely sure no concerns will "stick" in exceptional cases, a decision best left to their own judgement.
+One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user ''as an administrator'' (ie to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, or the like) or whose actions on the article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, are usually ''not'' considered prevented from acting on the article or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases, or if they wish to be absolutely sure no concerns will "stick" in exceptional cases, a decision best left to their own judgement.
 ==Removal of adminship==