|Wikibooks policy that the Wikibooks community has accepted and Wikibookians must follow. Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.This page documents an official|
|This policy has an unstable branch for proposing changes.|
Administrators, or "sysops", are Wikibookians who are generally well-known and trusted in the community, and who have had certain restrictions lifted at wikibooks. Administrators have the added abilities of being able to delete pages and block users for a specified period of time. Administrators are not granted any extra authority; they must follow all policies. They may grant the uploader, importer and reviewer flags.
Bureaucrats are administrators with extra tools responsible for judging community consensus in the granting of advanced access rights. They are able to create new administrators, bureaucrats and switch the bot flag. In certain cases, global rights holders may request a bureaucrat to determine whether a request should be processed. For example, a Global Renamer may check with a bureaucrat that a new username is acceptable.
Becoming an Administrator
Administrators will only be created after a discussion at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions results in a consensus of acceptance. Wikibookians may either request permissions themselves, or be nominated by another. A user nominated to become an administrator must accept the nomination explicitly, either on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions or on their user talk page before the discussion begins.
Discussion about the creation of a new administrator should follow the rules found at Wikibooks:Decision making. Creating an administrator is a "high-impact" situation.
Only a bureaucrat has the privileges to create a new administrator, and they will use their judgment as to whether a consensus on the matter has been reached. If they do not believe a strong consensus has been reached, they will not create the administrator. Once an administrator has been created, they may not have the rights removed, even if the privileges have been granted in error, unless there has been a further discussion with consensus to remove the rights. If no bureaucrat is available to create an administrator, but consensus has been reached on the matter, users may post a request at meta:Requests for permissions, where a steward may grant the permissions. Users are not allowed to ask the stewards for permissions if consensus has not been reached at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions.
While there are no specific requirements to becoming an administrator, they should be "well-known and trusted" members of the community, and expected to know the Wikibooks policy, especially the deletion policy. Also, because administrators are able to block users, they are expected to be familiar with the process of blocking a user. Administrator rights will be removed if the editor is inactive for a year.
Becoming a Bureaucrat
Bureaucrats are created in the same manner as administrators. Prospective bureaucrats can either request the permissions, or they can be nominated (and must explicitly accept the nomination). Creating a new bureaucrat is a more weighty discussion than the creation of an admin, and therefore users should take it more seriously. An election for a new bureaucrat must be advertised in the reading room, and possibly on the bulletin board as well. Bureaucrats can be created by other bureaucrats, or the stewards at meta. It is not permissible to request bureaucrat permissions on meta if consensus has not been reached at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions.
Candidates for Bureaucrats must currently be Administrators. There are no other specific requirements on creating new bureaucrats, although candidates are generally expected to be active Wikibookians, and well-respected admins.
Becoming a CheckUser
CheckUser rights provide an Administrator with additional tools for fighting vandalism. These tools allow an Administrator to see a Wikibookian IP address, in order to identify and combat disruption of the wiki.
Candidates for CheckUser must currently be Administrators, they can be nominated or request the rights, on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions. There is no explicit requirement on the number of contributions, or activity here at Wikibooks, but it is expected that the candidate will be a noted active vandalism fighter. As with any request for permission, if the candidate is nominated, there must be an explicit acceptance for the vote to continue.
CheckUser rights can only be granted by stewards. Stewards may not be contacted to grant these rights unless consensus has been reached at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions. The stewards may impose additional restrictions on the creation of CheckUsers, over which Wikibooks policy has no say. Access to the CheckUser tool is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation via the CheckUser Policy and requires that users who would like to become a CheckUser, be 18 years or older. Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Removing an Administrator/Bureaucrat
Administrative tools can be removed in the same manner in which they are granted: a nomination for removal, or "de-adminship", at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions and a consensus discussion to remove administrative powers from the offending admin. Sysops who do not meet any activity expectations (detailed below), or those who break policy, or those who abuse their powers, can be nominated for de-adminship at the Wikibooks:Requests for permissions page. Broken expectations, policy violations, or abuses should be noted in the nomination, so that all users can examine the evidence and make a decision on the matter.
As helpful members of the community, Wikibooks administrators are expected to provide the community with timely assistance when needed or requested and maintain a general understanding of current Wikibooks environment and policies. Sysops who are especially inactive, specifically for at least one year or longer, can be removed without a consensus discussion. Users who are inactive for a year must still be nominated for de-adminship on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions, and the time of their absence must be clearly noted. De-adminship in cases of absence for one year or more will take place at least one month after nomination on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions. The inactive sysop will be contacted both on his/her talk page and e-mail address (if available) to contest the nomination.
Sysops requesting de-adminship themselves will have that request granted immediately, not being subject to community approval. Should a sysop have his/her privileges removed, the user may re-apply for adminship at a later date without prejudice.
Administrators (and bureaucrats) have certain expectations on them. If an administrator doesn't live up to these expectations, they can be nominated for de-adminship. Admins who do not meet these expectations are not automatically removed: They must be nominated on Wikibooks:Requests for permissions, and the discussion must reach consensus on the matter to remove the admin.
- Administrators are expected to be active (see sysop activity on Wikibooks). There are no hard and fast definitions on what it means to be "active" but the general expectation for nomination of desysopship is the lack of activity for a year. Administrators who are not using privileges, those privileges provided by the community due to the user's knowledge and activity, do not need to continue having them. Administrators do not have a "lifetime membership" and are expected to continually use their tools for the good of the community.
- Administrators are expected to follow Wikibooks:Deletion policy. Administrators do not get to make unilateral decisions concerning page deletion, especially in controversial cases. Pages should not be deleted unless they are candidates for speedy deletions or if there has been a consensus discussion reached about the page on Wikibooks:Requests for deletion. Deleting pages without following policy is a major problem and can be very disruptive to the community.
- Administrators are expected to follow applicable policies concerning blocking users and IP addresses. "Infinite" blocks should not be employed unless specifically warranted. Legitimate users should not be blocked unless they are demonstrably disruptive to the community. If an admin blocks a legitimate user for no good reason that is a major disruption and a violation of this policy
- Administrators are expected to know and understand the uses of Protected pages, and not to abuse this privilege. Protecting and unprotecting pages without proper justification is against policy and prevents users from editing normally. Policies concerning semi-protection must also be understood and properly employed.
Administrators are just regular users, and they can be reprimanded as usual if they are disruptive, if they vandalize, etc.
If a user is clearly malicious or here for no reason besides to make trouble, they should be blocked. New users who are disruptive, but not maliciously so can receive short-term blocks to cool down. Administrators are trusted to use their judgment in determining whether a user deserves to be blocked and, if so, for how long. If it's not clear, discuss it at Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance.
Users who make particularly distasteful edits, and sock puppets of known serial vandals should be blocked permanently.
Open proxy IP addresses can be blocked for up to a year on sight. It is considered rude to block such an IP address if it is currently being used by a productive contributor, but it is not against the rules to do so.
IP addresses that are not open-proxies should never be blocked forever, except as described below, because they are frequently shared by many users where the majority are probably legitimate. Temporary blocks on IP addresses should be all that is required to handle a single case of vandalism. Shared IPs (such as those resolving to schools) should only be blocked if there is considerable vandalism that is causing serious disruption to the project. If a block is felt necessary, start with short-term blocks (1 hour, then 2, then 24, etc.), as these often provide sufficient time for the vandal to find other things to do.
Beyond open-proxies, infinite blocks should not be employed without good justification. Highly-disruptive vandals, repeat vandals, sockpuppets of known vandals, and usernames with profane words may all be blocked forever without further justification.
Other users who do not fit into the above categories should never be blocked forever. Many disruptive users only need a day or two to "cool off". Many vandals can be blocked for longer periods of time, in the hopes that they reform and come back to be productive, or that they lose interest and never return. Vandals returning from a temporary block to continue vandalizing, can be blocked forever.
Blocks, if they require explanation, should be clearly explained by the blocking admin on the user's talk page.
Pages should only be deleted as per the guidelines on Wikibooks:Deletion policy. Speedy delete candidates may be deleted immediately, but other pages may only be deleted as per a consensus discussion on Wikibooks:Requests for deletion.
Deleting pages should never be done lightly, and can be a very disruptive action if done incorrectly.
Deleted pages may only be undeleted as per a consensus discussion on Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion, unless the page was deleted in error. Pages deleted in error may be immediately undeleted by the admin who deleted it. If the deleting admin doesn't undelete it, it must be discussed on Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion.
Undeleting pages, especially pages with profanity or pages that contain copyright infringements, may cause bigger problems for the community, and should be carefully considered.
Undeleting pages without justification is a violation of policy.
Pages may be protected, semi-protected, and unprotected according to the relevant policies. Page protections cannot be altered without proper justification.
List of functionaries
Timeline of positions
|Local:||blocked users – anonymous users – registered users – autoconfirmed users – autoreviewed users – reviewers – uploaders – importers – bots – pseudo-bots – administrators – interface administrators – bureaucrats – checkusers|
|Global:||locked accounts – unified accounts – rollbackers – sysops – ombudsmen – system administrators – stewards|