Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are CanadianWiki editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.
Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers after undergoing a community review process. They do not act as employees of Rodgers Media Limited. 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 Wikimedia system administrators ("sysadmins").
Expectations of Administrators
- Judgement - Administrators must know how to block usernames and IP addresses, and how to use other admin functionality. Critical care should be used when using functions as an admin like banning an account or IP address/. You should refer to the CanadianWiki Policies governing banning.
- Conduct - Administrators (admins) are expected to have a significantly higher temperament when it comes to dealing with problematic editors, however, admins are not expected to be perfect either. From time to time, you may find yourself in a situation where an editor is vulgar or, may use language and phrases to get a rise out of you. It is your duty to keep your attitude in check and, be able to know when an editor is trying to make you mad and lose your cool. It is critical you remain cool, calm and collected when dealing with disruptive editors. If you feel you are unable to deal with an editor, you MUST speak to an admin and request that he or she deal with the editor. Requesting another admin to take the problem not only makes things easy for you but, this also means that you won't be at risk of losing adminship for severe situations. While the option of requesting another admin to assist, this should only be used when you know for a fact you can not deal with this problem, otherwise you can not request another admin to handle the situation "just because".
When using admin features like banning, you should always refer Code of Conduct. The ban feature is a great tool in ensuring the safety of editors and the security of CanadianWiki but, can not be used in every situation. An example: An editor is being problematic and you as an admin is speaking to this editor. The editor becomes vulgar towards you for what ever reason, and you start getting a little upset perhaps taking the situation as a personal attack (assuming it wasn't). You might think well, I will just ban this editor, that will shut him/her up. This is a situation where you can not use a ban but, violating CanadianWiki policies could result in a ban for a short time or a very long time. Depending on the situation, in most cases, a ban should only last a short time like a few days for example.
Admins are NOT in any way allowed to promote friends or family and, all requests must be done through the Request for Adminship (RfA) feature. There may be a challenge for other admins to know who is a random editor and who is not, so, we are trusting you that you will not promote an editor that is personally related or associated with you. Further, no editor is allowed to be promoted without going through the protocol. Promoting an editor without going through the RfA feature will result in your admin status removed, and, you account could be banned for a period of time as a further consequence.
Admins are NOT allowed to have more than one account, unless permission is received from CanadianWiki and, this permission MUST be one through a users talk page so there is a record of a conversation. A situation where there could be a chance of a secondary account when you attach an authenticator to your account, you refreshed your phone and you can not log back in. That admin account would lose admin status and the account would be banned, but not the IP address so you could have that second account. However, in that situation, you would have to re-apply to become an administrator.
- Accountability - Admins are required to accept accountability for their own actions or inaction's. Ensuring you fully accept your behavior good/bad ensures trust within the community and know that, consistent bad behavior or even a severe one time bad behavior will result in the loss of your admin status.
- Security - Admins are expected to have strong passwords, this ensures that your account will remain safe and won't be guessed. CanadianWiki though not required, encourages all admins to use the Two factor Authentication as an added method of security. Keep in mind, if you use Two factor Authentication, CanadianWiki has no way to remove this from your account. Having weak passwords or common names or phrases in your password not only makes your account risky but, puts CanadianWiki at risk. Also, we require you to attach a valid email address to your account so, if you forget your password, you can perform a password recovery.
Admin to Admin Dispute
Every admin has a way of performing his or her duties. There may be a time when an admin is dealing with a situation, and a another admin feels the need to step in because he or she could do their job better. There may be a time when another admin may need to step in to help with a situation but, admins are encouraged to remain out of a situation that is already being handled unless you are asked to help. Admins not only police non-admin editors but we also police each other. Admins are REQUIRED to report admins being abusive to other editors (admins included), or using admin tools in a bad manner.
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.
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 only be lifted 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 were unjustified. In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee by e-mail of the block and the reasons for it.
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 "Template: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: CanadianWiki: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.