Administrators, also known as sysops, are editors who have special tools that aid them in the maintenance of the site. These editors may be recommended by the community and are promoted at the discretion of Nathaniel. They have the ability to protect and delete pages, block malicious users, and undo these actions as well. By default, administrators are appointed for life, but may step down at any time.
This is a list of the current sysops of LifeWiki (an automatically-generated list is also available from Special:Listusers/sysop). If you need to tell them something or request their services, feel free to contact one of them.
- Nathaniel (Talk) – Site administrator
- Codeholic (Talk)
- Dvgrn (Talk)
- Sokwe (Talk)
- Apple Bottom (Talk)
The community looks to administrators to perform essential chores and tasks that require the extra tools that administrators are entrusted with. These duties include:
- Deleting pages: Administrators are responsible for monitoring the Marked for deletion category and carrying out any requested deletions.
- All deletions should be in accordance with the LifeWiki's deletion policy.
- Blocking users: Administrators are able to block users in cases where it is necessary to prevent damage to the site, in accordance with the blocking policy.
- The vandalism page provides more information on some situations under which blocking may be appropriate.
- Protecting pages: Some pages on the wiki are protected.
- Editing protected pages: Any edits to fully protected pages need to be made by administrators. These pages include:
Finally, since administrators are expected to be experienced with the procedures of LifeWiki, editors will often turn to one when they need information or advice.
Administrators should not override or undo another's administrative actions; any such action can lead to a wheel war. This includes deleting official warnings or notifications placed on a user's talk page; however, another administrator may choose to add their own comments to a user talk page (e.g., for emphasis, clarification, or to point out an overlooked circumstance). This does not apply in cases where there have been new developments since the first action was taken: for example, if one administrator warned a user about inappropriate behaviour (first action), and the user then resumed the behaviour (new developments), any administrator may then proceed to take further action (i.e., blocking) against the user. Also, this does not apply to regular contributions (such as routine editing) done by an administrator; the standard etiquette that applies to all editors should be used for any non-administrative types of contributions.
If an administrator has a disagreement with another administrator's actions, it is recommended that a discussion be started on that admin's talk page: ask why the first administrator chose that course of action, and point out what other alternatives there may have been (in particular whether any policies apply). If the first administrator agrees, it should be left up to the first admin to undo their own actions. If there is no existing policy covering the situation, or the policy is ambiguous, a more general discussion involving the rest of the community may be needed to try to establish an appropriate policy.
If you believe that another administrator has in some way undone one of your administrative actions, it is best to assume that the administrator was not aware of your previous action. Do not override the new action; instead, explain the situation to the other administrator and follow the same guidelines as in the previous paragraph.
If two administrators can not reach an agreement on what is appropriate, other administrators may be asked to provide their opinion on the situation. As a last resort, Daveh can be asked to provide arbitration.