Policy:Administrators
The following is a proposed BattleTechWiki policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Administrators are volunteer editors trusted with access to certain tools on Sarna.net BattleTechWiki. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, use the tools fairly, and never use them to gain advantage in a dispute. |
Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Sarna.net BattleTechWiki (Sarna BTW) editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on Sarna BTW. 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. Administrators are merely privileged users and should not be confused with sysadmins (the Bureaucrat position) of or as employees of the Sarna BTW.
Sarna BTW currently has 11 administrators (see full list of accounts with administrator privileges or list of BTW Staff).
Contents
Administrators' abilities[edit]
Administrators have the technical ability to perform the following actions:
- Block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing
- Apply, modify, and remove page protection on a particular page to restrict or allow editing, moving, or creation
- Delete pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions
- Grant and revoke certain user permissions.
- View and restore deleted pages
- Restrict and restore public visibility of information in individual logs and page revisions
- Edit fully protected pages
- Edit pages in the MediaWiki namespace, excluding JavaScript and CSS 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.
Expectations of adminship[edit]
Care and judgment[edit]
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. 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 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 in areas they are used to, and to ask others if unsure.
Administrator conduct[edit]
Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others at all times. Administrators are not exempt from any of Sarna BTW's established policies; they are expected to follow and uphold them and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with the use of the administrator toolset; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Sarna BTW through behavior such as incivility or "bad faith editing" is incompatible and a direct conflict 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 high standards of courtesy and civility, and their edits, discussions, interactions, and conduct should set the example for all other editors and at all times. This is both a requirement and a condition with holding administrator privileges.
Administrators should bear in mind that they have fellow colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound or escalate the problem with poor conduct.
Accountability[edit]
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 BattleTechWiki-related 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. Example cases would be:
- "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 with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)
- While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled. Administrators who do not have notifications enabled are strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
- Repeated, consistent, or egregious misuse of a tool or user permission that is bundled with the administrator toolset (such as moving files or the use of rollback) – an administrator can be stripped of their administrative privileges completely just to remove access to a bundled user permission.
- Repeated or consistent poor judgment.
Involved admins[edit]
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 or age 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.
In straightforward cases (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 the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator.
Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.
Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")[edit]
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. One possible approach is to start a discussion to request feedback from the community – however, complainants should be aware that their behavior is equally taken into account as the user that they are discussing. If a user believes they have been blocked improperly, they can go through the block appeal process and explain the situation and why they believe the block is improper or unjustified.
Misuse of administrative tools[edit]
Reversing another administrator's action[edit]
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.
Reinstating a reverted action[edit]
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 decision by consensus. 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.
Sarna BTW works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles. 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, and aim to cool the situation and bring it back to normal processes, if able. Adopting a deliberately calming manner and approach as you explain may help. In some cases, using direct commication may allow heartfelt personal advice to be given that could not easily be posted on-wiki.
- If concerned by improper conduct, follow dispute resolution processes, as with any other conduct matter.
- If you are concerned that not acting (or the delay needed for dialog) could quickly cause the situation to get much worse or would be grossly inappropriate, it can sometimes be sensible to contact the Sarna BTW sysadmin and let them know about the situation or request intervention or speedy advice. (This might be the case where non-public information or harm could result).
- And remember that you have colleagues: you are not alone and most issues are made worse by poor judgment. If you are seen to conduct yourself well, usually the matter will blow over soon, however bad it may seem. Sometimes it's best simply to take a break and calm down.
Exceptional circumstances[edit]
There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle. (Note: these are one-way exceptions.)
- Real People – Material deleted because it contravenes policy may be re-deleted if reinstated, if it continues to be non-compliant.
- Privacy – Personal information deleted under the 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 an 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.