Wikipedia:Administrators

People who have the administrative password can do some extra-powerful stuff like automatically renaming pages. For example, one could rename a page from JohnQDude to John Q Dude, and not only would the page be renamed, but all the links.

Additionally, administrators can actually delete pages. We probably don't want to do much of this, because in general, a redirect is better than a deletion! In that way, old links from search engines, etc., still work.

I, Jimbo Wales, propose that I should give out the administrator password fairly freely. People who have been around for a week or two, contributing to the pages in a useful way, should have access to this. Indeed, the only reason not to give it out willy-nilly is that someone really could mess things up. (For example, by renaming every page to 'Bob'.)

I think, as long as someone has shown good will (and that means pretty much everybody who is a regular visitor) should have it.

Are there any thoughts/objections to this?

---

(Also, I think that the admin password would give us a quick way to let regulars in to edit, while blocking others, if we come under attack from spammers or vandals at some point.)

---

There are actually two separate levels of special access: the "editor" level and the "admin" level. Admins are given complete power/control over the wiki. They can do things like:

• Renaming or deleting pages
• Locking individual pages from further editing
• Locking the entire wiki against public editing with a single command
• Banning IP addresses or networks from editing
• Running the CPU/disk-intensive maintenance function at any time (other users are limited to once per 12 hours)
• All editor-level functions

The "editor" level currently has very few extra powers, which include:

• Editing pages even when the entire wiki is locked to outside users
• (As a site option, default off) Renaming or deleting pages

Note that each level can have multiple passwords, which can be individually revoked. This means that you could have a relatively public editor password and other less-public passwords (for major contributors, for instance). If the public password is abused, it could be revoked without affecting the less-public passwords. (For Wikipedia I might suggest/code other systems for managing access, like allowing admins to simply grant/revoke editor-level access without using a password.)

---

Perhaps CliffordAdams knows of some reason why this is a bad idea.

The main problem I (CliffordAdams) see is that one could cause severe disruption with some of the admin-level commands. Features like locking pages or banning networks might be controversial.

I think it would be better to give relatively free editor-level access, and possibly move some functions from the admin to the editor level. My suggestions are:

1. Give editor-level access to anyone who has written at least 3 "good" contributions (or one excellent page). Most contributors will get this access quickly.
2. Give admin-level access to people who have been around for at least a month, have written at least 10 "good" pages, and who want to help with "admin" tasks.

Personally, I think "admin" level access should be viewed as a community service rather than a reward. Indeed, if there are enough volunteers, I think there should only be a few permanent admins and a larger number of limited-time admins, rotating every few months.

For renaming and deletion, I'm considering a new feature to let anyone suggest changes or deletions, which could be quickly confirmed by any admin user. In the meantime, I think it would be best to restrict these features to admins only. A public page for rename/deletion suggestions could be established, and admins could frequently cut/paste suggestions from that page into the rename/deletion form. --CliffordAdams

---

Under the current system, the admin features take a very long time to run, locking the entire site from new edits. For this reason alone, extending admin priviliges could be disastrous. I don't think even the current administrators should use the editlinks features until this system is improved. - Tim

---

I (Larry Sanger) would support some such scheme (as long as the practical problems Tim mentions can be overcome). But I agree with Cliff when he says "one could cause severe disruption with some of the admin-level commands. Features like locking pages or banning networks might be controversial." As a basic security measure, I don't think we should pass out the same password to everyone, but give each person an individual password that can be revoked in case there's a problem.

I think there's a bit of a practical concern in that, possibly, some people might be made admins who fail to understand or agree with whatever community standards there are--and proceeds to rename pages and otherwise wreak havoc, not out of maliciousness but cluelessness, hubris, egotism, and the like. If you've been online for long enough, and I know you all have, you know that this sort of problem is practically inevitable. I don't know that we need to do anything about this potential problem other than what Cliff already proposed, i.e., assign admin responsibilities only to people who have been with us for a month and have created a lot of good articles. Maybe I'd add the simple caveat that we should state that one shouldn't expect to get admin privileges after a certain amount of work--in other words, it's not automatic. Something along those lines, anyway. --Larry Sanger