Editing Encyclopedia:Administrators (section)

== Expectations of adminship ==
{{policy shortcut|WP:ADMINEXPECT}}

=== 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 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 ===
{{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 are not exempt from ''any'' of Wikipedia's [[WP:PG|established policies]]; they are expected to follow 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 Wikipedia through behavior such as [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] or [[WP:BADFAITH|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.<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.