Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
M~enwiki (talk | contribs)
3,719 edits
→Reversing another admin's action: ...it's even worse when I type tildes in emails.
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Hrafn is an editor gone crazy his history is filled with an anti creationist agenda, and he is blocking legit contributions, and blocking users who take efforts to appease, and improve according to his claims for deletion...by saying they are in an "Edit War" how can he be investigated, or removed from these subject matters with a neutral editor PLEASE, LOOK AT HIS HISTORY

{{sprotected2}}
{{sprotected2}}
{{policy|WP:ADMIN|WP:SYSOP|WP:MOP}}
{{policy|WP:ADMIN|WP:SYSOP|WP:MOP}}

Revision as of 08:30, 27 August 2009

Hrafn is an editor gone crazy his history is filled with an anti creationist agenda, and he is blocking legit contributions, and blocking users who take efforts to appease, and improve according to his claims for deletion...by saying they are in an "Edit War" how can he be investigated, or removed from these subject matters with a neutral editor PLEASE, LOOK AT HIS HISTORY

This is the symbol of a Wikipedia administrator. It combines the site's logo with a mop, as sysops are colloquially likened to janitors for rhetorical reasons.

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, and block other editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.

The English Wikipedia has 851 administrators as of August 2009.

No big deal

Shortcuts

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.

The following is an often paraphrased comment about the title and process of administratorship—referred to as "sysops" here—made by Jimbo Wales in February 2003:


A modern clarification of this statement would be that while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, merely "being an administrator" is not.

Becoming an administrator

Main page: Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
Note: Each individual Wikimedia project (including other Wikipedias) may have its own policy for granting adminship.

The English Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience, however adminship is oriented towards community trust and confidence, and considerable experience is usually expected. Each editor will personally assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way. Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community.

If at this point you are interested in requesting adminship, you should first read the guide to requests for adminship and the nomination instructions. When you are ready to apply, you may add your nomination to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship ("RFA") page, according to the aforementioned instructions. A discussion (not a vote) will then take place among fellow editors about whether you should become an administrator. After seven days, a bureaucrat will determine if there is consensus to approve your request. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass and most of those below ~70% fail.

Note that only one account of a given person may have administrative tools. The sole exceptions are by agreement of Arbcom or the community.

Adminship is granted indefinitely, and is only removed upon request or under circumstances involving high-level intervention (see administrator abuse below).

Be careful, please!

If you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and 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.

Administrator tools are also used with judgement; it can take some time for a new administrator to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking and page protection in difficult disputes. New administrators are strongly encouraged to start slowly and build up experience on areas they are used to, and by asking others if unsure.

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.)

Places where administrators in particular can assist

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

See also Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks, where admins willing to handle more difficult blocks and other situations can make themselves known, and the administrators channel on IRC for IRC users.

"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of Arbitration Committee remedies and the dispute resolution concerning chronic disruptive areas and situations. Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with. Lists can be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions and Arbitration enforcement requests and the related Arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE).

Administrator noticeboards

Two main noticeboards exist on which general administrator discussion takes place (any user may post or take part in discussions there).

Administrator conduct

Shortcut

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.[1][2][3][4]

Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Administrators are accountable

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act 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:

  1. Repeated/consistent poor judgment
  2. Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc)
  3. Failure to communicate[5]– this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
  4. "Bad faith" adminship (sock puppetry, gross breach of trust,[6] etc)
  5. Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc).

Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")

Shortcuts

If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against him/her or another editor, he or she 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 (see Dispute resolution process below). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges.

Misuse of administrative tools

Misusing the administrative tools is considered a very serious issue; they are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought, care, and with due diligence and good judgment. Serious misuse of the tools may result in sanctions or even their removal. If a user believes that an administrator has not used their administrative tools as per the established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they should first discuss their concerns and issues with the respective administrator directly. In cases where the issue is not resolved by discussing it directly and/or when broader community input is determined to be necessary or required, users can post their concerns regarding the issue at Wikipedia:Administrative action review for review by the broader community.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

  • Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.
  • Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.
  • Administrator actions in conjunction with paid editing – Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.
  • Reinstating an admin action that has already been reversed (sometimes known as "wheel warring") – Responses have included Arbitration and desysopping even the first time.

See below for these and for the very few exceptions.

Even when use of the tools appears reasonable, if doubt exists it is better to ask another independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action.

Reversing another admin's action

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause.

Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring")

WP:WW redirects here; you may also be looking for Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words or Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly.
Shortcuts

When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.

Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing.

Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. For summaries and citations of relevant arbitration cases, and example scenarios, see /Examples.

Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:

  • An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly,
  • Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action,
  • Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.

Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling. There are few issues so critical that fighting is better than discussion, or worth losing your own good standing for. If you feel the urge to wheel war, try these alternatives:

Historic usage: the term "Wheel warring" has also been used historically to describe situations where the use of tools to reverse an action was seen as flagrantly improper. (Eg: "Wheel warring against Jimbo Wales", "Wheel warring against BLP special enforcement")

Exceptional circumstances

There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle. (Note: these are one-way exceptions):

  • Biographies of living persons—material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if reinstated, if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant.
  • Privacy—personal information deleted under the Foundation's privacy policy may be re-deleted if reinstated.
  • Emergency—in certain situations there may arise an emergency that cannot be adjourned for discussion. An administrator should not claim emergency unless there is a reasonable belief of a present and very serious emergency (i.e., reasonable possibility of actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a user if not acted upon with administrative tools), and should immediately seek to describe and address the matter, but in such a case the action should not usually be reverted (and may be reinstated) until appropriate discussion has taken place.
  • Page protection in edit warring—reasonable actions undertaken by uninvolved administrators to quell a visible and heated edit war by protecting a contended page should be respected by all users, and protection may be reinstated if needed, until it is clear the edit war will not resume or consensus agrees it is appropriate to unprotect.

Uninvolved admins

Shortcut

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, 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 wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases, although they are not required to. Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases.

If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.

Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise does not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocking actions taken against the warned user.

However, if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible.

Removal of adminship (desysopping)

If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Administrators may be removed either by Jimmy 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 and Jimmy Wales.

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 #Administrator recall. Users may use dispute resolution to request comment on an administrator's suitability.

Technical note—removal of rights does not currently show up in the usual user logs. Use {{Userrights|username}} for full links to user rights information and full logs, including the stewards' global logs on meta as well, or Special:ListUsers to verify a users' current rights. See: Bugzilla 12925.

Disputes or complaints

Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then two other steps are also available:

  1. A Request for Comment on an Administrator, where the community considers concerns (or requests for removal of adminship) and will give feedback and views. As for all users, a Request for Comment requires a second user to certify it, who has also tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
  2. A Request for Arbitration if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship, without Request for Comment being needed.

If the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly.

Voluntary removal

Administrators may request that their access to the administrative tools be removed at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrator status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat. This is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Administrator recall

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall

Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if a certain number of editors in good standing request so. The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and is usually detailed in their userspace. The process is entirely voluntary and administrators may change their criteria at any time, or decline to adhere to previously made recall pledges. If an administrator steps down as a result of a recall he or she then requests removal at m:Steward requests/Permissions.

Retirement

Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed.

Security

Main page: Wikipedia:Security

It is extremely important that administrators have strong passwords and follow personal security practices. Because they have the potential to cause site-wide damage with a single edit, a compromised sysop account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security. In certain circumstances, the revocation of privileges may be permanent. Discretion on resysopping temporarily desysopped administrators is left to bureaucrats, who will consider whether the rightful owner has been correctly identified, and their view on the incident and the management and security (including likely future security) of the account.

Administrators should never share their password or account with any other person, for any reason. If they find out their password has been compromised, or their account has been otherwise compromised (even by an editor or individual they know and trust), they should attempt to change it immediately, or otherwise report it to a steward for temporary de-sysopping. Users who fail to report unauthorized use of their account will be desysopped under controversial circumstances.

See also

Wikiversity has learning resources about How to be a Wikimedia sysop
Links related to wheel warring

ak:Wikipedia:Administrators

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&oldid=310327552"