Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conti (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 22 January 2009 (This should be common sense, but, apparently, it isn't.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notes to editors: Due to its importance and relevance, this section is reflected both in the main "Admin" page, and the "Tools" subpage. To keep both versions up to date and prevent "drift", it's included via transclusion. The text of this section may include #ifeq: expressions to modify the wording depending what page it appears on. Take care when editing. Quick guide to syntax: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}| Target page | Then include this text | Otherwise include this text}} It is presently used to make the wording say see below on the main ADMIN page but see (wikilink) on the tools page.

Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

• Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

• Communal norm/policy — When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.

• Reinstating a reverted action (sometimes known as "wheel warring") — see Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Misuse of tools for this and for the very few exceptions.

In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This is a matter of judgement if necessary.

• WP:UNINVOLVED

Uninvolved admins

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases.

If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.

However, if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible.