WikiStaff:Administrators

**Administrators**, commonly known as **admins** or **sysops**, are wiki editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the Republic's Wiki. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers after undergoing a community review process. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved.

The Republic's Wiki has 7 administrators.

## Administrators' abilities

Administrators have the technical ability to perform the following actions:

* block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing.
* Apply, edit and remove page protection on a particular page to restrict or allow editing, moving, or creation.
* Delete pages.
* Grant and revoke certain user permissions requested by user accounts
* View and restore deleted pages
* Restrict and restore public visibility of information in individual logs and page revisions
* Edit fully protected pages
* Move a page to any desired title
* Perform other special actions as listed at Special:ListGroupRights#sysop

By convention, administrators normally take responsibility for judging the outcomes of certain discussions, such as deletion discussions (whether or not a page should be deleted), move discussions, but other editors may close discussions in some cases (see non-admin closures).

## Becoming an administrator

The Republic Wiki has no official requirements to become an administrator. Any registered user can request adminship ("RfA") from the community, regardless of their wiki experience. However, administrators are expected to have the trust and confidence of the community, so requests from users who do not have considerable experience are not usually approved. Any editor can comment on a request, and each editor will assess each candidate in their own way. However, only registered editors can "vote" in such requests.

Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term editors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of the wiki, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Questions regarding this are permitted to be asked of every candidate, by any editor in the community, throughout the RFA process.

A discussion takes place for seven days about whether the candidate should become an administrator. The community has instituted a question limit: no editor may ask more than two questions of a candidate. Also disallowed are multi-part questions that are framed as one question, but which in effect ask multiple questions and exceed the limit. Bureaucrats may "clerk" RfAs, dealing with comments and/or votes which they deem to be inappropriate.

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 then determines if there is consensus to approve the request. This determination is not based exclusively on the percentage of support, but in practice most RfAs above 75% should pass. In general, RfAs between 65 and 75% support should be subject to the discretion of bureaucrats. (Therefore, it logically follows that almost all RfAs below 65% support will fail.)

While RFA is an intensive process, the quality of feedback and review on the candidate's readiness and demeanor by experienced editors is often very high. Applicants who are unsuccessful but take steps to address points raised will often succeed on a subsequent request some months later. When you are ready to apply, you may add your nomination to the WikiReq:Requests for adminship ("RFA") page, according to the instructions on that page.

**Only one account of a given person may have administrative tools**.

Adminship is granted indefinitely, and is removed only upon request, under circumstances involving high-level intervention (see administrator abuse below), by a two-thirds majority vote of the Bureaucrats, or temporarily for inactive admins.

"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of Arbitration Committee remedies and the 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. Lists of sanctions that are to be enforced by neutral administrators can be found at WikiPolicy:General sanctions and Wiki:Arbitration/Active sanctions (see also requests for enforcement at Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement).

## Administrator noticeboards

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

* WikiBoards:Administrators' noticeboard (WB:AN) – Used for things administrators may wish (or need) to know, such as notices and general information.
* WikiBoards:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WB: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 judgment

If granted access, administrators must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses. New administrators should also look at the pages linked from the Wikipedia's administrators' reading list before using their administrative abilities (Fandom and Wikipedia have very similar tools). 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 to be used with careful *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 in areas they are used to, and to ask others if unsure.

### Administrator conduct

Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wiki policies and 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 the wiki through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors.

Administrators should bear in mind that they have colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator 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 with poor conduct.

### Accountability

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as 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 conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee.

## Involved admins

> "No man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause"
>
> Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed 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 that do not show bias, is *not* involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. 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 via the relevant noticeboards.

## Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")

If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. If the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can proceed with dispute resolution (see this section below for further information). One possible approach is to use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request feedback from the community Template:Endash however, complainants should be aware that the behavior of the filer is often also scrutinized. If a user believes they have been blocked improperly, they may appeal the block.

While the Arbitration Committee does not review short or routine blocks, concerns about an administrator's suitability for the role may be brought in a Request for Arbitration, usually when other dispute resolution approaches are unsuccessful (see this section below).

## Misuse of administrative tools

### 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 administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

#### Special situations

In some situations, the usual policy for reversing another administrator's action does not apply:

* **Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee":** Rarely, in blocking an editor, an administrator will have to note that their block "should be lifted only by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom only". Such a provision must only be made if the nature of the block demands that its circumstances not be further discussed on-wiki (and instead be considered further only in a confidential environment). This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify an anonymous editor, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block were unjustified. In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee by email of the block and the reasons for it.
* **Blocks made by the Arbitration Committee:** Separate from the first situation, a member of the Arbitration Committee may block an account. Blocks made *by an arbitrator* with the summary "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or Template:Nowrap are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. These blocks are made by a decision of arbitrators, very rarely, and only with good reason. Therefore, administrators must not reverse ArbCom blocks without the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: Wiki:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions.)
* **Checkuser blocks:** Blocks designated as "Checkuser blocks" (that is blocks relying on confidential checkuser findings) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the checkuser permission. Appeal of these blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators were reminded that they may not reverse checkuser blocks without prior consent from the committee or a checkuser.
* **Oversight blocks:** Blocks designated as "Oversight blocks" (that is blocks relying on information that has been suppressed) may not be reversed by administrators who do not have access to the oversight permission.

### Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")

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 administrator, 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 administrative disputes by discussion.**
Wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration.

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.

### Exceptional circumstances

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

* **Privacy** – Personal information deleted under Fandom'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 person 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 rights, these rights may be removed 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 functions (also known as "partial censure") or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove the administrator user right from an account is granted to the bureaucrat, and Owner user groups (see Special:ListGroupRights). In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act, Fandom Staff are permitted to protect the best interests of the wikiby removing administrative permissions or globally locking accounts and advising the Arbitration Committee after the fact.

### Procedural removal for inactive administrators

Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 6 months may be desysopped. This desysopping is reversible in some cases (see #Restoration of adminship) and never considered 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 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.

If necessary, the user's userpage should be edited to clarify the status — particularly if any categorization is involved.

### Voluntary removal

Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at WikiBoards:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

### 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:

#### Administrator recall

Some administrators 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.

#### 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, such as raising the issue at WikiBoards:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene early on. Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, and removal of administrator privileges.

## Restoration of adminship

Regardless of how adminship is removed, any editor is free to re-request adminship through the typical requests for adminship process.

Former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. Adminship is granted unless one of these situations applies:

* **Adminship was resigned while "under a cloud."** If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation, the request will be referred to a RfA. In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.
* **Lengthy inactivity**
	+ **Over a year with no edits.** If an editor has had at least one year of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to instead request through the RfA process. In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, only six months of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity is required before a new RfA is necessary.
	+ **Over six months since administrative tools were last used.** In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in six months, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request.
* **Security of account cannot be established.** At their discretion, bureaucrats may decline to restore adminship if they are not satisfied that the account is controlled by the same person who used it previously.

### Procedure

Former administrators may request restoration of administrator status by placing a request at WikiBoards:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. There is a standard 24-hour review period before the request may be actioned by a bureaucrat according to resysop procedures.

Before restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the administrator permission, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a discussion among bureaucrats.

1. ↑ Administrators are able to grant and revoke the account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, edit filter helper, edit filter manager, event coordinator, extended confirmed, file mover, IP block exempt, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor user rights.
2. ↑ This user right is only held by User:Krystool, who has never performed a technical desysopping using this group.
3. ↑ Excepting those with a specific arbitration, owner or community sanction barring the request.