Suradnik:Imbehind/wp admin

Administratori, koje još nazivamo i admini ili sysopi (system operators), su suradnici na Wikipediji kojima su dodijeljeni tehnički alati kako bi obavljali određene posebne radnje na hrvatskoj Wikipediji. To uključuje mogućnost blokiranja i deblokiranja suradničkih računa, IP adresa i raspona IP adresa kako bi im onemogućili uređivanje, uređivanje potpuno zaštićenih stranica, zaštitu i skidanje zaštite uređivanja na stranicama, brisanje i vraćanje obrisanih stranica, premještanje i preimenovanje stranica bez ograničenja kao i korištenje raznih drugih alata.

Administratori preuzimaju navedene obveze kao volonteri nakon što prođu proces odabira u zajednici. Od njih se nikad ne traži da koriste svoje alate, a sami ih nikad ne smiju koristiti za stjecanje prednosti u sporu u kojeg jesu ili su bili uključeni. Oni nisu niti djeluju kao zaposlenici Zaklade Wikimedia i ne bi ih smjeli brkati sa sistemskim administratorima koji rade za Wikimediu ("sysadmins").

Hrvatska Wikipedija ima 14 administratora (pogledajte potpunu listu suradničkih računa s administratorskim ovlastima).

Ovlasti administratora

Administratori imaju tehničke mogućnosti za obavljanje sljedećih radnji:

• Blokiranje i deblokiranje suradničkih računa i IP adresa kako bi im onemogućili uređivanje stranica na Wikipediji
• Dodavanje zaštite, mijenjanje razine zaštite i skidanje zaštite sa stranica kako bi ograničili uređivanje, premještanje ili stvaranje stranica
• Brisanje stranica s manje od 5,000 izmjena
• Dodjeljivanje ili oduzmanje određenih suradničkih prava na zahtjev drugih suradnika.
• Pregledavanje i vraćanje obrisanih stranica
• Ograničavanje ili omogućavanje vidljivosti informacija u individualnim logovima i popisima izmjena stranica
• Uređivanje potpuno zaštićenih stranica
• Uređivanje stranica u MediaWiki imenskom prostoru, osim JavaScript i CSS stranica
• Zaobilaženje crne liste naziva stranica
• Premještanje stranice na bilo koji drugi naziv
• Obavljanje drugih posebnih radnji navednih na Special:ListGroupRights#sysop

Prema običaju, administratori obično preuzimaju na sebe obvezu ocjenjivanja ishoda nekih rasprava kao u slučaju brisanja ili premještanja stranica, ali drugi suradnici također smiju zaključivati rasprave u nekim slučajevima.

Becoming an administrator

Predložak:Main Predložak:Notice

The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become an administrator. Any registered user can request adminship ("RFA") from the community, regardless of their Wikipedia 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 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 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 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. 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% 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 guide to requests for adminship and the 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 bots with administrative access. See WP:ADMINSOCK.

Adminship is granted indefinitely, and is removed only upon request, under circumstances involving high-level intervention (see administrator abuse below), or temporarily for inactive admins.

Places where administrators in particular can assist

Administrator rights can be particularly helpful in certain areas of Wikipedia:

• Administrative backlogs
• Anti-vandalism
• Copyright problems (advice for admins)
• Incidents for admin attention
• Main Page sections, such as In the news or Did you know
• Recent changes patrol
• Speedy deletion requests
• Three-revert rule and edit warring violations

See also Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and the administrators channel on IRC for IRC users.

"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 Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions (see also requests for enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement).

Administrator noticeboards

Predložak:Policy shortcut Two main noticeboards exist on which general administrator discussion takes 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.

Što se od administratora očekuje?

Pažnja i prosudba

Kada dobije pristup administratorskim alatima administrator ih mora koristiti pažljivo, pogotovo kad se radi o alatima za brisanje stranica te blokiranje korisnika i IP adresa (proučite priručnik za administratore i upute za nove administratore kako bi naučili kako se te stvari rade). Novi administratori bi trebali dobro proučiti i stranice sadržane na listi članaka za admine prije nego što krenu koristiti svoje ovlasti. Povremene greške u prosudbi se mogu tolerirati, ali ukoliko su greške ozbiljne ili se ponavljaju, a pogotovo ako uključuju kršenje odredbi o izbjegavanju djelovanja involviranih administratora, neće biti tolerirane.

Administratorski alati se ne mogu koristiti bez dobre prosudbe, procjene ili rasuđivanja. Novom administratoru treba vremena da nauči kad je potrebno koristiti alate, a ponekad trebaju mjeseci kako bi stekao osjećaj za određivanje trajanja primjene alata poput blokiranja i zaštite stranica u ozbiljnim prijeporima. Od novih administratora se očekuje da krenu polako i da postepeno grade iskustvo u područjima u kojima su navikli surađivati te da pitaju kolege za pomoć kad su nesigurni kako treba postupiti.

Primjereno ponašanje

Administratori bi drugim suradnicima trebali biti primjer dobrog ponašanja, a kao i svi suradnici, s drugim suradnicima trebaju se uvijek ophoditi s poštovanjem i na civiliziran način. Administratori bi trebali težiti tome da budu uzor poželjnog načina ljubaznog i uljudnog odnosa prema drugim suradnicima. Administratori bi trebali slijediti pravila i smjernice wikipedije te obavljati svoje dužnosti najbolje što mogu. Povremene greške su u potpunosti spojive s dužnostima administratora - od administratora se ne očekuje da budu savršeni. Međutim, trajno ili ozbiljno narušavanje rada i atmosfere na Wikipediji ponašanjem kao što je neuljudnost ili pak uređivanjem u lošoj vjeri nikako nije spojivo niti s očekivanjima niti s odgovornošću koju administratori imaju. Ako administrator učestalo ili krajnje drsko zanemari svoje dužnosti ili demonstrira lošu sposobnost prosuđivanja, to može dovesti do oduzimanja administratorskih alata.

Administratori bi trebali uvijek imati na umu da imaju i druge kolege admine. Stoga, ako administrator uoči da se ne može pridržavati pravila i ostati uljudan (čak i prema suradnicima koji pokazuju problematično ponašanje) tijekom rješavanja nekog problema, tada bi taj administrator trebao iznijeti problem na administratorsku oglasnu ploču (WP:NPA), umjesto da svojim lošim ponašanjem pogorša situaciju.

Odgovornost

Administratori su odgovorni za sve svoje radnje koje uključuju korištenje administratorskih alata, obzirom da neobjašnjivi potezi administratora mogu loše utjecati na suradnike. Ograničeni jedino pravilima o uljudnosti, izbjegavanju osobnih napada i djelovanjem u dobroj vjeri u okvirima razuma, suradnici su slobodni preispitivati ili kritizirati poteze i radnje administratora. Od administratora se očekuje da odgovore uljudno i bez odugovlačenja na sve upite vezane za njihovo ponašanje i djelovanje na Wikipediji kao i za administrativne postupke koje su proveli. To se posebno odnosi na rasprave na oglasnim pločama (WP:NPA) ili tijekom procedura koje provodi ArbCom. Administratori bi uvijek trebali moći opravdati svoje postupke kad se od njih to zatraži.

Administratori koji su ozbiljno ili opetovano djelovali na problematičan način te oni koji su izgubili povjerenje zajednice mogu biti sankcionirani ili im Arbitražni odbor (ArbCom) može ukinuti administratorske ovlasti. To se obično događa u slijedećim slučajevima:

• Administriranje u lošoj vjeri (čaraparenje, teška povreda povjerenja zajednice itd.)
• Povreda temeljnih pravila (osobni napadi, neuljudnost, ratovanje izmjenama, povrede privatnosti itd.)
• Ponašanje na drugim mjestima nespojivo s administriranjem (napadi van Wikipedije i slično)
• Izbjegavanje komunikacije s pojedinim suradnicima (npr. nedostatak prikladnih upozorenja ili pojašnjenja administratorskih postupaka)
• Izbjegavanje davanja odgovora na pitanja zajednice (posebno kad zajednica traži pojašnjenja radnji ili druge odgovore iz domene djelovanja administratora)
• Opetovana, uporna ili krajnje drska zlouporaba administratorskih alata (kao što su blokiranje ili brzo vraćanje). Administratoru se mogu u potpunosti ukloniti sve ovlasti čak i samo da bi mu se onemogućio pristup tim alatima.
• Opetovano ili dugotrajno loše prosuđivanje

Iako je dobra administratorska praksa ta da imaju email komunikaciju uključenu, od njih se ne traži da bude uključena niti da uvijek odgovaraju na emailove.

Security

Predložak:Main Wikipedia's policy on password strength requirements requires administrators to have strong passwords and 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 10,000 most common passwords may also be desysopped. Discretion on resysopping temporarily desysopped administrators is left to bureaucrats, 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.

Two-factor authentication is available to all users 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 circumstance', and access will not be automatically restored.

Administratori u sukobu interesa

»WP:INVOLVED« preusmjerava ovamo. Za guidance on involvement for non-administrator actions, pogledajte Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Editors who are uninvolved.

Predložak:Policy shortcut

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

U pravilu, suradnici koji su i administratori ne bi smjeli koristiti administratorske alate u prijeporima u koje su uključeni. To je zbog toga što administratori koji su u sukobu interesa ne mogu uvijek donositi objektivne odluke u sukobima u kojima su jedna od strana ili oko kojih su emotivni. Zajednica pojam sukob interesa tumači široko pa uzima u obzir trenutne ili prošle sukobe sa suradnikom (ili grupom suradnika) kao i prijepore unutar određenih tema. Obično ne uzima u obzir ni prirodu ni konačni ishod sukoba niti je bitno koliko davno se sukob zbio.

Jedina važna iznimka je slučaj ako je (1) administrator u sukobu djelovao iz čisto administratorske, a ne suradničke pozicije, ako je (2) njegova involviranost minorna ili ako su (3) njegove izmjene očito nisu pristrane. U tom slučaju se smatra kako administrator nije u sukobu interesa i nije spriječen djelovati u skladu sa svojim administratorskim ovlastima u odnosu na spornog suradnika ili tematsko područje djelovanja. Upozorenja, smirena i razumna diskusija, pojašnjenja izdanih upozorenja, savjeti oko normi ponašanja zajednice, sugestije oko moguće formulacije sadržaja ili općenitog pristupa ne predstavljaju sukob interesa.

U jednostavnim slučajevima (npr. blatantni vandalizam), zajednica će obično podržati očito nužni postupak bilo kojeg admina, čak i ako je u sukobu interesa, na osnovu činjenice da bi i bilo koji drugi administrator vjerojatno došao do istog zaključka o nužnom postupanju. Iako postoje izuzeci od zabrane djelovanja administratorima koji su u sukobu interesa, svejedno je i dalje najbolja praksa, pogotovo u slučajevima u kojima se na administratora može baciti sumnja da djeluje iako je u sukobu interesa, da prepusti slučaj svojim kolegama administratorima koristeći pripadajuću administratorsku oglasnu ploču (WP:NPA).

Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")

Predložak:Further Predložak:Policy shortcut 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 Predložak: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 was unjustified. In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee by email of the block and the reasons for it.

  In August 2012, the Arbitration Committee issued a reminder that administrators must promptly notify the committee when making sensitive blocks or when noting that a block can be "appealed only to ArbCom". In these situations, the administrator retains responsibility for their block (see this arbitration ruling) but will be accountable to the committee. (Such blocks have been the subject of long-standing Wikipedia practice, and were also discussed in the fourth paragraph of this statement.)

• 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 "{{ArbComBlock}}" 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: 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 Unblock Ticket Requests System (which has a designated "checkuser" area) or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators were reminded 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 in March 2013 that oversight blocks cannot be reversed without prior consent from the committee or an oversighter.

Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")

»WP:WW« preusmjerava ovamo. Za druga značenja, pogledajte WP:WW (razdvojba).

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. 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 arbitration cases on the subject of wheel-warring. The phrase was also used historically for an administrator improperly reversing some kinds of very formal action.

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.
• Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action.

Wikipedia 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 email 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. For example: move the issue to WP:AN or WP:ANI and wait for input. For serious and egregious misuse of tools consider RFAR.
• 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 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 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 take a break and calm down.

The term "wheel" comes from the description of 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.

Exceptional circumstances

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

• 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 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 or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove the administrator user right from an account is granted to the bureaucrat, steward, and founder user groups (see Special:ListGroupRights). In emergency situations where local users are unable or unavailable to act, stewards are permitted by the global rights policy to protect the best interests of Wikipedia by removing administrative permissions or 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 consensus. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see #Administrator recall. Users may use dispute resolution to request comment on an administrator's suitability.

Predložak:TrackedPredložak:Green – Removal of rights performed by stewards does not show up in the usual user logs. Use {{Userrights|username}} for full links to user rights information and full logs, including the stewards' global logs on meta as well, or Special:ListUsers to verify a user's current rights.

Procedural removal for inactive administrators

Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 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 English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 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.

Restoration of adminship

Regardless of how adminship is removed, any editor is free to re-request adminship through the 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 WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.
• 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 instead request through the WP:RFA process. In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity, only one year of continued uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) from the removal due to inactivity is required before a new WP:RFA is necessary.
  • 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.
• 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.
• A bureaucrat is not 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.

Procedure

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

History

Predložak:Policy shortcut In the very early days of Wikipedia, only Bomis employees were administrators, as the server password was required to make any administrative changes. The idea of an administrator role was proposed in late 2001 during the development of the first version of MediaWiki. 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 maintenance and 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:

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

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 arbitration, the community carefully scrutinizes requests for adminship.