View source for Wikipedia:Administrators

{{short description|Wikipedia policy page regarding administrators}}
{{For|the encyclopedic article about administrators on Wikipedia|Wikipedia administrators}} 
{{For|information on the administrative structure of Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Administration}}
{{Ombox
|text = {{Big|'''Note:''' This is '''neither''' the page to post [[Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention|questions for administrators]], '''nor''' to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|request administrator privileges]].}}<br /> Instead, use [[Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention|Requests for administrator attention]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|Requests for adminship]], respectively.
}}
<noinclude>{{sprotected2}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{Policy|WP:ADMIN|WP:SYSOP|WP:MOP}}
{{Nutshell|'''Administrators''' are volunteer editors trusted with access to [[/Tools|certain tools]] on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, use the tools fairly, and '''never''' use them to gain advantage in a dispute.}}
{{ADMINRightPlace}}
{{Human administration}}
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|thumb|Wikipedia's administrative tools are often likened to a janitor's [[mop]], leading to adminship being described at times as being "given the mop". Just like a real-world [[janitor]] might have keys to offices that some other workers are excluded from, admins have some role-specific abilities, but – also like a real-world janitor – they're not more important than the other editors.]]
{{Enforcement policy list}}

'''Administrators''', commonly known as '''admins''' or '''sysops''' ([[system operator]]s), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. These include the ability to [[WP:BLOCK|block]] and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#full|fully protected]] pages, [[WP:PROTECT|protect]] and unprotect pages from editing, [[WP:DELETE|delete]] and [[WP:UNDELETE|undelete]] pages, [[WP:MOVE|rename]] pages without restriction, and use certain other [[/Tools|tools]].

Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers after undergoing a [[WP:RfA|community review process]]. They do not act as employees of the [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]. 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 should not be confused with [[m:System administrators|Wikimedia system administrators]] ("sysadmins").

The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} administrators (see {{Plainlink|url=//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000|name=full list of accounts with administrator privileges}} or [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|lists of administrators by activity level]]).

== Administrators' abilities ==
{{Anchor|POWERS|Powers|ABILITIES|Abilities|ADMINRIGHTS|MOPRIGHTS}}
{{Shortcut|WP:MOPRIGHTS}}
Administrators have the technical ability to perform the following actions:
* [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Block]] and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing<ref>These blocks can disallow editing of certain pages or namespaces, or be applied sitewide and to ''all pages''.</ref>
* Apply, modify, and remove [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]] on a particular page to restrict or allow editing, moving, or creation
* [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Delete]] pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions<ref>Pages with more than 5000 revisions can only be deleted by a [[WP:STEW|steward]].</ref>
* Grant and revoke certain user permissions [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|requested by user accounts]]<ref>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, template editor, and AutoWikiBrowser access user rights.</ref>
* [[Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages|View and restore deleted pages]]
* [[WP:RevDel|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<ref>Only [[Wikipedia:Interface administrators|interface administrators]] have the ability to edit JavaScript and CSS pages in the MediaWiki namespace.</ref>
* [[Help:Moving a page|Move]] a page to any desired title
* Perform other special actions as listed at {{Section link|Special:ListGroupRights#sysop}}

By convention, administrators normally take responsibility for judging the outcomes of certain discussions, such as [[WP:deletion discussions|deletion discussions]], [[WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions|move discussions]], and [[WP:Move review#Closing reviews|move-review discussions]], but non-admin editors may also [[Wikipedia:Closing discussions|close]] discussions (see, e.g., {{slink|WP:Deletion process||Non-administrators closing discussions}} and {{slink|WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions|Non-admin closure}}).

== Becoming an administrator ==
{{Main|Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship}}
{{Notice|Each individual [[m:Wikimedia projects|Wikimedia project]] (including [[m:List of Wikipedias|other Wikipedias]]) may have its own policy for granting adminship.}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CANDIDATE}}
The [[English Wikipedia]] requires that administrator candidates possess the [[Wikipedia:Extended|extended-confirmed]] user right.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed]]</ref> Any extended-confirmed user can [[WP:RFA|request adminship]] ("RFA") from the community. 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 editors possessing the extended-confirmed user right can "vote" in such requests.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements]]</ref>

Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia editors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. 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. Per community consensus, RfAs are advertised on [[MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages|editors' watchlists]] and [[Template:Centralized discussion]]. 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. [[WP:CRAT|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. Editors explore the candidate's involvement and background as an editor, conduct in discussions, and understanding of the role they are requesting. Editors state if they support or oppose the request, along with their reasons and impressions of the candidate. An [[WP:UNINVOLVED|uninvolved]] bureaucrat then determines if there is [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] to approve the request. This determination is not based exclusively on the percentage of support, but in practice most RfAs above 75% pass. The community has determined that ''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. If you are interested in requesting adminship, you should first read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|guide to requests for adminship]] and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate|nomination instructions]]. When you are ready to apply, you may add your nomination to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] ("RFA") page, according to the instructions on that page. 

'''Only one account of a given person may have administrative tools'''. The only exception is administrators may own [[WP:Bots|bots]] with administrative access. See [[WP:ADMINSOCK]].

Adminship is granted indefinitely, and is removed only upon request, under circumstances involving high-level intervention (see [[#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")|administrator abuse]] below), or due to inactivity.

=== Places where administrators in particular can assist ===
Administrator rights can be particularly helpful in certain areas of Wikipedia:
* [[:Category:Administrative backlog|Administrative backlogs]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|Anti-vandalism]]
* [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Copyright problems]] ([[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins|advice for admins]])
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Incidents for admin attention]]
* [[Main Page]] sections, such as [[Template:In the news|In the news]] or [[Template:Did you know|Did you know]]
* [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol|Recent changes patrol]]
* [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion requests]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR|Three-revert rule and edit warring violations]]

See also [[Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks]] and [[Wikipedia:IRC##wikipedia-en-admins|the administrators channel on IRC]] for IRC users.

"Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] remedies and the [[WP:DR|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions]] (see also requests for enforcement at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]]).

{{anchor|anyuser}}

== Administrator noticeboards ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:ANYUSER}}
Three main [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboards]] exist on which general administrator discussions take place (any user may post or take part in discussions there):
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] ([[WP:AN]]) – Used for things administrators may wish (or need) to know, such as notices and general information.
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] ([[WP: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.
* [[Wikipedia:Administrative action review]] ([[WP:XRV]]/[[WP:AARV]]) – Is a noticeboard where administrative actions by administrators can be discussed and reviewed by the broader community.

== 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
(see the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|administrators' how-to guide]] and [[Wikipedia:New admin|new administrator page]] to learn how to do these things). New administrators should also look at the pages linked from the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]] before using their administrative abilities. Occasional lapses are accepted but serious or repeated lapses, or lapses involving breaches of [[WP:INVOLVED|'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 ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:ADMINCOND}}

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 should follow all [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia policies]] and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with the admin toolset; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] or [[WP:BADFAITH|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 high standards of courtesy and civility, and their conduct should set the example for all other editors.<ref>See principles in several arbitration committee cases: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Decorum and civility|Decorum and civility]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Expectations and role of administrators|expectations and role of administrators]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision#Responsibility of administrators|responsibility of administrators]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Administrators|administrators]]</ref>

Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of 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 ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:ADMINACCT}}

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 [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|avoiding personal attacks]], and reasonable [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith]], editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-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. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for the following actions:
* "Bad faith" adminship ([[WP:SOCK|sock puppetry]], gross breach of trust,<ref>{{cite web| url = //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=73659720&oldid=73657229| title = example}}</ref> etc.)
* Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)
* Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)
* Failure to communicate<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Communication|Communication principle]]</ref>{{spaced ndash}}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 [[Help:Notifications|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.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=828824928#Should_one_of_the_expectations_of_administrators_be_to_have_email_enabled?| title = 2018 RfC on Admin Email requirements}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=1183142209#Are_admins_required_to_have_notifications_enabled?|title=2023 talk page discussion regarding notifications}}</ref>
* Repeated, consistent, or egregious misuse of a tool or user permission that is bundled with the administrator toolset (such as [[WP:FMV|moving files]] or the use of [[Wikipedia:Rollback|rollback]]) {{endash}} An administrator can be stripped of their administrative privileges completely just to remove access to a bundled user permission.
* Repeated or consistent poor judgment.

=== Security ===
{{shortcut|WP:SECUREADMIN}}
{{main|Wikipedia:User account security}}
Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Password strength requirements|policy on password strength requirements]] requires administrators to have [[Password strength|strong passwords]] and [[Wikipedia:Personal security practices|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. Any administrator who is discovered to have a password less than 8 bytes in length or among the [[Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords|10,000 most common passwords]] may also be desysopped. Discretion on resysopping temporarily desysopped administrators is left to [[WP:ARBCOM|the Arbitration Committee]], 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.

[[WP:2FA|Two-factor authentication]] is available to further secure accounts from unauthorized use.

Administrators must '''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 circumstances', and access will not be automatically restored.

== Involved admins ==
{{Redirect|WP:INVOLVED|guidance on involvement for non-administrator actions|Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Editors who are uninvolved|and|Wikipedia:Third opinion}}
{{anchor|INVOLVED|UNINVOLVED|involved|uninvolved}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:INVOLVED|WP:UNINVOLVED}}
{{Quote box
| quote = "No man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause"
| source = [[Thomas Hobbes]], ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|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.

In straightforward cases (e.g., [[WP:VAND|blatant vandalism]]), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator&nbsp;– even if involved&nbsp;– 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 via the [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|relevant noticeboards]].

Non-administrators closing discussions<ref>[[WP:RFC|Requests for comment]], [[WP:RM|Requested moves]], [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]], etc</ref> and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Editors who are uninvolved|editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes]].

== Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") ==
{{further|Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:ADMINABUSE|WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE}}
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 [[#Disputes or complaints|this section below]] for further information). One possible approach is to use [[WP:XRV|administrative action review]] or the [[WP:ANI|administrators' noticeboard]] to request feedback from the community {{endash}} however, complainants should be aware that the behavior of the filer is often [[WP:BOOMERANG|also scrutinized]]. If a user believes they have been blocked improperly, they may [[WP:APPEAL|appeal the block]].

While the [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] does not review short or routine blocks, concerns about an administrator's suitability for the role may be brought to the committee with a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]], usually when other dispute resolution approaches are unsuccessful (see [[#Arbitration Committee review|this section]] below).

== Misuse of administrative tools ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:TOOLMISUSE}}<!--
  ALSO COPIED TO WP:ADMIN/TOOLS, DUE TO IMPORTANCE.
  TRANSCLUSION USED TO ENSURE IT'S UP TO DATE.

  Link to edit this section:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse_of_tools_section&action=edit

  THE TEXT INCLUDES #ifeq: EXPRESSIONS TO MODIFY WORDING BASED ON THE PAGE USED. TAKE CARE. :-)
-->{{Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse of tools section}}

=== Reversing another administrator's action ===
{{policy shortcut|WP:RAAA}}

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 by the Arbitration Committee:''' Blocks authorized by the Arbitration Committee must include a clear indication of their source, such as "For the Arbitration Committee", "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee", or "{{t|ArbComBlock}}". Administrators must only place, reduce, or remove such blocks with the prior, written consent of the committee. (See also: {{Section link|Wikipedia: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 [[WP:UTRS|Unblock Ticket Requests System]] (which has a designated "checkuser" area) or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators were reminded [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on checkuser blocks|in July 2010]] 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. The Arbitration Committee ruled [[Special:Permalink/542990142#Oversight-related blocks|in March 2013]] that oversight blocks cannot be reversed without prior consent from the committee or an oversighter.

=== <span class="anchor" id="Wheel war"></span>Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring") ===
{{redirect|WP:WW|text=You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers]]}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:WHEEL|WP:WW}}

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 war]]ring''' 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.

<div style="border: 2px solid #990000; background-color: #FFCCCC; border-radius: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; color:black;"> <!-- Color:black does actually change something; the default color is *not* black! (Yes, really!) -->
<strong style="font-weight:normal;">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 <em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">by discussion</em>.</strong>
</div>

Wheel warring usually results in an immediate [[WP:RFAR|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 [[WP:Arbitration|arbitration]] cases on the subject of wheel-warring.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Wheel war|UBX war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Wheel warring|Pedophilia userbox wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe|Freestylefrappe]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war|Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war|Sarah Palin protection wheel war]]; [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]].</ref> The phrase was also used historically for an administrator improperly reversing some kinds of very formal action.<ref>e.g., "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Karmafist|Wheel warring against Jimbo Wales]]" and "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop#Wheel-warring against BLP special enforcement|Wheel warring against BLP special enforcement]]"</ref>

Wikipedia works on the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Consensus|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, [[WP:EMAIL|email]] may allow heartfelt personal advice to be given that could not easily be posted on-wiki.
* If concerned by improper conduct, follow [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|dispute resolution]] processes, as with any other conduct matter. For example: move the issue to [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] and wait for input. For <strong>serious and egregious misuse of tools</strong> consider [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|filing an Arbitration Committee case request]]. 
* 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 [[WP:AC|email the Arbitration Committee]] 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 hundreds of 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 [[Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down|take a break and calm down]].

The term "wheel" comes from the description of [[Wheel (computing)|highest privileged accounts]] on the [[PDP-10]] and [[TOPS-20]] mainframe computers, where "wheel" was used the way "root" is used on Linux/Unix systems.<ref>{{cite web|title=Wheel |url=http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/W/wheel.html |access-date=8 June 2021|work= Jargon File 4.4.7 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Wheel bit |url=http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/W/wheel-bit.html |access-date=8 June 2021 |work= Jargon File 4.4.7 |publisher=Eric S. Raymond }}</ref>

==== Exceptional circumstances ====
There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle. (Note: these are one-way exceptions.)
* '''[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|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 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 <strong>all</strong> 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 ==
{{anchor|Removal of adminship (desysopping)}}

If an administrator abuses administrative rights, these rights may be removed by a ruling of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]. 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 the administrator user right from an account is granted to the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] and [[meta:Stewards|steward]] user groups (see [[Special:ListGroupRights]]). In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act, stewards are permitted by the [[Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Stewards|global rights policy]] to protect the best interests of Wikipedia by removing administrative permissions or [[Meta:Global locks|globally locking]] accounts and advising the Arbitration Committee after the fact.

There have been several procedures suggested for a community-based desysop process, but none of them has achieved [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see {{Section link|#Administrator recall}}. Users may use [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] to request comment on an administrator's suitability.

{{tracked|T6055}}{{green|'''Technical note'''}} – Removal of rights performed by stewards does <u>not</u> show up in the usual user logs. Use {{tlx|Userrights|''username''}} for full links to user rights information and full logs, including the stewards' global logs on [[meta:|meta]] as well, or '''[[Special:ListUsers]]''' to verify a user's current rights.

=== Procedural removal for inactive administrators ===
{{see|Wikipedia:Inactive administrators}}
{{policy shortcut|WP:INACTIVITY}}

Administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity:
#Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period<ref>[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins]], June 2011</ref>
#Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period.<ref>[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements]], March 2022</ref> 

This desysopping is reversible in some cases (see {{Section link|#Restoration of admin tools}}) 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 on two occasions before the desysopping depending on the criterion:
:For criterion (1): One month before the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping goes into effect. 
:For criterion (2): Three months before the request for desysopping and again one month before the desysopping goes into effect. 
In addition, any editors who are falling lower than an average of 50 edits per year over a 5-year period should be notified by talk page message annually that they are at risk of falling below the required level in the future.

Desysopping on inactivity grounds should be handled by English Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|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&nbsp;— particularly if any categorization is involved.

=== Voluntary removal ===
Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]].

=== Disputes or complaints ===
{{see|Wikipedia: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 if dialog fails, then the following steps are available:

==== Administrator recall ====
{{main article|Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall}}

Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to [[#Voluntary removal|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 [[Wikipedia: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.

=== Administrators subject to bans ===
{{shortcut|WP:BANDESYSOP}}
In general, administrators who are subject to restrictions such as topic bans, interaction bans, or blocks of any length keep their tools unless one of the above removal processes apply. However, as with [[WP:BANNEDRIGHTS|all other granted user rights]], the administrator tools will be removed from a user who is subject to an indefinite sitewide [[WP:CBAN|community ban]].<ref>[[Special:PermanentLink/1155585586#Alternate_proposal_(Procedural_community_desysop)|2023 ''Procedural community desysop'' RfC]]</ref>

== Restoration of admin tools ==
{{anchor|Resysop}}
Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the [[WP:RFA|requests for adminship]] process.<ref>Excepting those with a specific arbitration or community sanction barring the request.</ref>

Former administrators may re-request the admin tools subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. The request is granted unless one of these situations applies:

* '''The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "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 or removal, the request will be referred to [[WP:RFA]]. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.
* '''Removed as a result of a [[WP:CBAN|community ban]].''' When an editor's admin tools are removed as a result of a community ban, the editor will need to re-apply through the typical process ([[WP:RFA]]) to regain the tools.<ref>Except in the rare instance where the ban is reversed due to a mistake by the community (but not merely due to a successful appeal of the ban), in which case the tools' removals are reversed as well. See [[Special:Permalink/1155585586#Alternate_proposal_(Procedural_community_desysop)|2023 RfC]].</ref>
* {{anchor|Lengthy inactivity}}'''Lengthy inactivity'''
**'''Over two years with no edits.''' If an editor has had at least two years 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 request reinstatement through the [[WP:RFA]] process. In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, one additional year of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity will make a new [[WP:RFA]] necessary for reinstatement.<ref>Revised [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2019_Resysop_Criteria_(2)#Statement_7_by_Amorymeltzer|November 2019]]; originally formulated in [[Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_13#Restoration_of_the_tools_(proposal)|November 2012]]</ref>
** '''Over five years 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 five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request.<ref>A [[Special:Diff/1128194757#Clarifying_5_year_rule|2022 RfC]] clarified a [[Special:Permalink/828580847#RFC: Slight tweak to lengthy inactivity policy|2018 RfC]] that this should be interpreted as {{tqq|five years since the last tool use, regardless of whether the five-year mark falls before or after the desysop.}}</ref>
* '''Security of account cannot be established.''' At their discretion, [[WP:BUREAUCRAT|bureaucrats]] may decline to restore admin tools to an editor if they are not satisfied that the account is controlled by the same person who used it previously.
* '''A bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor'''.<ref name="Resysop-2019-1">See {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)|Statement 1 by TonyBallioni}}</ref> Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the admin tools, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a discussion among bureaucrats.<ref name="Resysop-2019-2">See {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)|Statement 3 by Hasteur}}</ref>

=== Procedure ===
Former administrators may request restoration of admin tools by placing a request at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]]. There is a standard 24-hour review period before the request may be granted by a bureaucrat according to  [[WP:RESYSOP|resysop procedures]]. The change is recorded at the [[Wikipedia:List of resysopped users|list of resysopped users]].

== History ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:DEAL|WP:NOBIGDEAL}}
In the very early days of [[Wikipedia]], only [[Bomis]] employees were administrators, as the server password was required to make any administrative changes.<ref>[[:nostalgia:Wikipedia_utilities/Old_Page_titles_to_be_deleted_talk]]</ref> The idea of an administrator role was proposed in late 2001 during the development of the first version of [[MediaWiki]].<ref>[[:nostalgia:Wiki Administrators]]</ref> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] directly appointed the first administrators in February 2002. 

Under the [[role-based access control]] currently used, individual accounts are marked with the special roles they may play; these roles in turn determine any special tools they may access. Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most [[WP:Maintenance|maintenance]] and [[WP:Administration|administration]] tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. An often paraphrased comment about the title and process of adminship was made by Wales in February 2003—referred to as "sysops" here:

{{anchor|No big deal}}
{{quote|I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.|Jimmy Wales|2003<ref>{{cite web| url = http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-February/001149.html| title = wikimedia.org archive entry}}</ref>}}

Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be.

As Wikipedia's worldwide cultural impact and visibility grew, and as the community grew with it, the role of administrators evolved and standards for adminship rose. Given the lengthy procedures required to remove administrative access, which often include attempts to resolve the dispute prior to [[WP:ARB|arbitration]], the community carefully scrutinizes [[WP:RfA|requests for adminship]].

== See also ==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-3}}
'''History and statistics'''
* [[Wikipedia:Former administrators|Former administrators]]
* [[Wikipedia:RFA by month|Requests for Adminship by month]]
* [[User:JamesR/AdminStats|Statistics of administrator activity]]
* [[User:Widefox/editors|Administrator activity graphs]]
* [[User:Amorymeltzer/s-index|S-index]]
{{col-3}}
'''For administrators'''
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|Administrators' how-to guide]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Administrators' noticeboard]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|Administrators' reading list]]
* [[Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators|Advice for new administrators]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide|Information for new administrators]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators/Message list|Administrators' Mass Message list]]
{{col-3}}
'''Miscellaneous'''
* [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|List of administrators]] ([[Special:Listusers/sysop|automatically generated version]])
* [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates|Advice for RfA candidates]], essay
* [[Wikipedia:what adminship is not|What adminship is not]], an essay
* [[Wikipedia:User access levels]]
* [[Wikipedia:Inactive administrators]]
* [[:m:Tech/News]]
{{col-end}}
'''Contacting administrators'''
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention]] (various methods of contacting administrators for general help)
* [[Wikipedia:List of administrators#Active|Active Wikipedia administrators list]] and [[Wikipedia:List of administrators#Semi-active|semi-active Wikipedia administrators list]] (for contacting specific administrators)

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==
{{wikiversity|How to be a Wikimedia sysop}}
* [[Meta:Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Wikipedias|Administrators in all Wikipedias]], [[Wikipedia:Meta|Meta-Wiki]]

{{New admin school}}
{{RfA Navigation|tstyle=background: #ccccff;|gbstyle=background: #ddddff;|state=collapsed}}
{{Wikipedia accounts|collapsed}}
[[Category:Wikipedia adminship|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies]]
[[Category:Wikipedia user access levels]]