WikiQueer:Administrators

Icon currently used to represent WikiQueer Administrators.

Editor behavior
Enforcement policies
Administrators Banning policy Blocking policy Bot policy Harassment Protection policy Sock puppetry Username policy Vandalism

Administrators, commonly known as admins or in the past sysops (system operators), are WikiQueer editors trusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools"). For example, administrators can protect, delete and restore pages, move pages over redirects, hide and delete page revisions, and block other editors. See WikiQueer:Administrators/Tools for more information about the tools administrators have.

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not acting as employees of the The Aequalitas Project (with the exception of the Lead Administrator). 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 WikiQueer currently has 14 administrators.

• Requests for adminship
• All user accounts with admin privileges

Becoming an administrator

WikiQueer has no official requirements you must meet to become a WikiQueer administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their WikiQueer experience. Administrators are expected to uphold the trust and confidence of the community, however, and considerable experience is usually expected. Each editor will 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 WikiQueer contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of WikiQueer, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community.

If you are interested in requesting adminship, you may add your nomination to the WikiQueer:Requests for adminship ("RFA") page, according to the aforementioned instructions. A discussion (not a vote) may take place among fellow editors about whether you should become an administrator. An Aequalitas Project representative, in consultation with members of the Global Advisory Board will determination on your request.

Only one account of a given person may have administrative tools. The only exceptions are bots with administrative access. See WQ:ADMINSOCK.

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

Places where administrators in particular can assist

Administrator rights can be particularly helpful for working in certain areas of WikiQueer:

• Administrative backlogs
• Anti-vandalism
• Copyright problems (advice for admins)
• Incidents for admin attention
• Recent changes patrol
• Speedy deletion requests
• Three-revert rule and edit warring violations

Administrator noticeboards

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

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

Expectations of adminship

Care and judgement

If you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and 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. Occasional lapses are accepted but serious or repeated lapses may not always be.

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.

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 WikiQueer 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 WikiQueer is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.^[2]

Accountability

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 WikiQueer-related conduct and administrator 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. This can be suggested for:

• "Bad faith" adminship (sock puppetry, gross breach of trust, etc.)
• Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc)
• Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.).
• Failure to communicate  – 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).
• Repeated/consistent poor judgment

Security

Main page: WikiQueer:User account security

It is extremely important that administrators have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices. Because they have the potential to cause site-wide damage with a single edit, a compromised admin 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 the lead administrator, 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. Unauthorized use is considered 'controversial circumstances', and access will not be automatically restored.

Involved admins

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

A user seeking administrator or uninvolved user help may use the {{uninvolved|type|details}} template to request assistance. Requests will appear in Category:Requests for uninvolved help until removed.

Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")

If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, 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. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly.

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, or 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 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.

• 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.

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 judgment if necessary.

Reversing another administrator'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, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.

Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring")

WQ:WW redirects here; you may also be looking for WikiQueer:Avoid weasel words.

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 a reversed 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. There have been several relevant arbitration cases on the subject of wheel-warring. The term was also used historically for an administrator improperly reversing some kinds of very formal action.

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.

WikiQueer 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:

• Seek constructive discussion,
• Follow dispute resolution processes as with any other conduct matter. For example: move the issue to WQ:ANI and wait for input, or (for serious and egregious misuse of tools) consider RFC or RFAR.
• Take a break and calm down.

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.

Review and removal of adminship

If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Users may use dispute resolution to request comment on an administrator's suitability. Administrators may be removed by the Lead Administrator, by The Aequalitas Project, 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 the Lead Administrator.

Procedural removal for inactive administrators

Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped. This desysopping is not to be considered permanent, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect. Requests to stewards for desysopping on inactivity grounds should be made by English WikiQueer bureaucrats. The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural. If the user returns to WikiQueer, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing WikiQueer while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances.

If necessary, the user's userpage should be edited to clarify their status - particularly if any categorization is involved. For example, the userbox {{User WikiQueer/Administrator}} should be replaced with {{User WikiQueer/Former administrator|inactive=yes}}.

Voluntary removal

Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed by using WikiQueer's contact form. Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request at any time that their administrator status be restored by a bureaucrat, provided the bureaucrat is satisfied that the account's security has not been compromised in the meantime.

Disputes or complaints

Further information: WikiQueer: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 misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available.

Requests for comment on administrator conduct

Misuse of administrator access or behavior that is incompatible with adminship may result in an involuntary request for comment on administrator conduct. Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review, for which see below.

Arbitration Committee review

This is an involuntary process. Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution are tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct or other steps. Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, and removal of administrator privileges.

Future Development / Appointments

In accordance with The Aequalitas Project's incubator approach to program development, the appointment responsibility may one day shift from the Project's Directors to a new or different governing body.

Related pages

History and statistics

• Former administrators

For administrators

• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' noticeboard
• Administrators' reading list
• Advice for new administrators
• New admin school

Miscellaneous

• List of administrators (automatically generated version)
• WikiQueer:User access levels

External links

Links related to wheel warring

• Wheel wars entry at Jargon dictionary
• meatball:AnarchyAndFreedom
• meatball:MetaModeration
• meatball:SoftSecurity
• meatball:TitForTat