User:Ricken/SandboxPG/Administrators

Administrators, commonly called admins, are AmtWiki editors who have been granted the technically ability to perform certain actions on the wiki, including the ability to block users and IP addresses from editing for periods of time, editing fully protected pages, change the protection levels of pages, delete and undelete pages, and other tools.

Admins receive these abilities by going through a community review process. They are not allowed to use their abilities to take the higher ground in a dispute, and they do not have to use their tools at all.

There are currently 17 administrators on AmtWiki (see the full list of accounts with administrator privileges for a full list).

Admin abilities

• Block a user from from editing or sending e-mail
• Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks; also automatic blocks of proxies
• Change protection levels and edit protected pages
• Delete and undelete pages
• Do text string replacements on the entire wiki
• Edit other users' CSS and JavaScript files
• Edit the user interface
• Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled
• Import pages from a file upload and other wikis
• Mark others' edits as patrolled
• Move files, pages (including their subpages), and root user pages
• Not be affected by rate limits
• Supress redirect creation when moving pages
• Overwrite existing files
• Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page
• Search deleted pages, and view deleted text and changes between deleted revisions
• Unblock themselves
• Upload files, inlcuding files from a URL
• Use higher limits in API queries

"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of dispute resolution concerning 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.

Becoming an admin

There are no official requirements to become an AmtWiki administrator. Anyone can request adminship, regardless of their wiki experience. Admins are expected to have trust and loyalty from the Amtgard community, so people who are not well-known or who don't have a lot of editing experience are less likely to be approved. Any user can comment on a request for adminship, assess the candidate's readiness in whatever way they prefer.

Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should be aware of AmtWiki's procedures, and respect and understand its policies. A discussion will take place for at least a week about whether a person should be given admin rights, to allow for a full discussion.

Editors can ask whatever questions they would like of the candidate. The RfA process allows other editors to get to know the candidate, and explore the candidate's involvement and background as an editor, conduct in discussions, and understanding of the role they are requesting, and to state if they support or oppose the request, along with their reasons and impressions of the candidate. An uninvolved bureaucrat (or admin, if all bureaucrats are involved) then determines if there is consensus to approve the request.

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

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.

Expectations of admins

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 Amtwiki:New admin. Occasional lapses are accepted, but serious or repeated lapses, or lapses involving breaches of 'involved' administrator conduct, 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 to ask others if unsure.

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 AmtWiki 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 AmtWikiis 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.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have a dozen or more 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 refer the issue to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.

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 wiki-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. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:

• Failure to communicate, 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 bold actions that are against community consensus, or without seeking consensus of the community

Security

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 bureaucrat for temporary desysopping. Users who fail to report unauthorized use of their account will be desysopped. Unauthorized use is considered 'controversial circumstance', and access will not be automatically restored.

Neutrality

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed 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 involvements 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'.

Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator.

Adminship 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 below).

Misuse of admin 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. An admin might have to avoid using their tools in situations in which they are involved, or if it goes against community norms, or if an admin has already made a decision on a matter (esp. a dispute).

Review and removal of adminship

If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Admins can be removed by bureaucrats, or by community involvement. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with bureaucrats.

Inactive adminis

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 e-mail (if possible) one month before the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping goes into effect. Desysopping on inactivity grounds should be handled by bureaucrats. The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural.

Upon return, an inactive admin may request their user group rights, and they will be returned. Alternatively, they may remain as users with normal account rights, and may request the return of admin rights at any time.

Admins who go more than three years without editing must go through the process RfA once again.

Voluntary removal

Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed for any reason. If former admins who abandoned their user rights wish to return to being an admin, they must repetition at Amtwiki:RfA.

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 misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available.

Admin recall

Administrators may place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if specified criteria are met. The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and 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.

Admin review

This is an involuntary process. Before an admin review begins, all other forms of dispute resolution must be attempted. However, if the matter is serious enough (blatant misuse of powers), these processes may be skipped and an admin review may be called.

Any user may call an admin review by creating a heading at the title "AmtWiki:Admin noticeboard/Reviews", with the title "ADMINUSERNAME". You must then tag the top of the page with {{admin review}}. Underneath, detail the reason you are calling an admin review, citing broken policies and guidelines that the administrator has gone against, as well as specific examples of issues and links to those issues. If you are seeking a specific action to be carried out, note that at the end. Remember to sign your post with ~~~~.

Let the admin know on their talk page that you are holding an admin review for them. Tell them as soon as possible after posting the review, so they have ample time to respond to issues raised. Also post a link to the review at AmtWiki:Admin noticeboard. Feel free to also post a link on Amtgard related sites like E-sam or Facebook, though remember to keep your post as neutral as possible so you do not canvas your cause unfairly.

On the admin review itself, and user may discuss the admin at hand. Editors are encouraged to make statements about the issue, and comment on statements presented, in order to reach consensus. Editors may suggest actions to be taken, including edit blocking for various lengths, temporary or permenant removal of admin rights, or other actions that the offending admin must take to make reprimands. Once ample time has been given (usually about a week), an uninvolved admin may determine consensus and close the argument.

Restoration of adminship

Unless specifically prevented by prior community consensus, regardless of how adminship is removed, any editor is free to re-request adminship through the typical Requests for adminship process.