Wikipedia:Administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to it should reflect consensus. Consider discussing potential changes on the talk page first.

Shortcuts: WP:ADMIN WP:SYSOP WP:MOP

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 and also called sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been entrusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools") which help with maintenance. For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well. (For a more complete list, see Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.)

Administrators undertake additional responsibilities on a voluntary basis, and 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.

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, those seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. When the communal feeling may be unclear, administrators may help provide a thoughtful voice in some kinds of consensus (see this comment).

Currently, the English Wikipedia has 1,657 administrators.

No big deal

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 as of 2009 would be to say that while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, being an administrator should not be considered a big deal.

Becoming an administrator

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, while adminship is oriented towards community trust and confidence (rather than checklists and edit counts), 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. If you feel that 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, sometimes called a !vote from the computer science symbol for negation) 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 give you admin status. 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.

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

• Incidents for admin attention
• Three-revert rule and edit warring violations
• Anti-vandalism
• Copyright problems (advice for admins)
• Speedy deletion requests
• Administrative backlog
• Administrators will also find their tools useful for Recent changes patrol.

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).

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) - used for things administrators may wish to (or need to) know, such as notices and general information.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) - Used for matters needing attention from "any passing administrator/s". Although threads here can become long, this board is primarily for incidents and other matters needing advice or attention.

Administrator conduct

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 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")

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 Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents.

Misuse of administrative tools

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

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

• 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 (like obvious vandalism) 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, 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.

• Reinstating a reverted action (sometimes known as "wheel warring") — see below for this and for the very few exceptions.

In most cases even when use of the tools is 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.

Uninvolved admins

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/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 still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although 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.

Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring")

It is strictly forbidden for administrators to war using administrative tools.

Wikipedia:Wheel war describes wheel warring in these terms:

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for immediate revocation of adminship with Arbitration following in a number of cases.

Administrative actions should never be reversed without good cause. When another administrator has reversed an administrative action, then there is very rarely a valid reason for the original or any other administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Administrators who do so risk desysopping for abuse of their access.

Exceptional circumstances

With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. There are a few exceptions to this general principle.

• Wikipedia: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.

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

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 administrators status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat. This is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Administrator 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.

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 materials about How to be a Wikimedia sysop

• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' noticeboard
• Administrators' reading list
• Advice for new administrators
• An essay on what adminship is not
• Automatically generated list of administrators
• Chart of the growth in number of administrators (through early 2007)
• Former administrators
• List of administrators with promotion dates
• Meta:Administrators of various Wikipedias - administrators in all Wikipedias.
• New admin school
• Wikipedia:User access levels