Sysops are expected to have an intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy. They are also expected to consistently demonstrate comprehension of these policies. This is especially paramount regarding the use of abilities entrusted to sysops which are unavailable to regular users and editors of Wikipedia. The following items are considered highly recommended reading material. These pages detail prerequisite knowledge required by a sysop: ==General== * Wikipedia:Administrators * Wikipedia:Administration FAQ * Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide * Wikipedia:Wikiquette * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ==Controversy== * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues * Wikipedia:NPOV dispute * Wikipedia:Protection policy ==Deletion== * Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators * Wikipedia:Deletion policy * Wikipedia:Deletion process * Wikipedia:Undeletion policy * Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion ==Requests== * Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention ''Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention'' * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested ==Vandalism== * Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism * m:Vandalbot * Wikipedia:Blocking policy * Wikipedia:Banning policy * m:Bans and blocks ==Miscellaneous== * Wikipedia:Copyrights * Wikipedia:Database queries * Wikipedia:Editing the main page * Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves * Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia administrators
This belongs on the meta. --User:Dante Alighieri 21:41, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Not if we agree that ''every'' sysop ''should'' read this stuff. By all means, remove what you think isn't essential to dealing with the challenges sysops face around here. A more exhaustive reading list can always go on the meta later. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::Well, as sysops are not ''required'' to deal with trolls and whatnot, and as every sysop approaches the Wikipedia in a different way and has different interests and priorities, I don't see how any of it (even the Wikipedia pages) is essential. So I agree this is better on meta. --User:Camembert Belongs on Meta, too subjective.User:Eloquence 23:58, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC) I agree it probably belongs on meta (restored with EoT's original list), but it shouldndn't be called "sysop reading list". Firstly becasue they are properly called "administrators", not "sysops". Secondly because the very real "challenges" EoT mentions are challenges to ''everybody'' here. Or at least to everybody who participates in good faith. User:GrahamN :Yes, that is true. So is there a Wikipedia:conscientious contributors reading list? That might also include consensus, consensus decision making, open content, troll, and various things on the meta. As for the name, many of them call themselves sysops, and it's a nice short name. And it implies technical responsibilities, as opposed to admin-istrative, so it's probably better, if you don't want them to over-reach their authority. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::I agree, let us make two different lists. They have little similarities anyway. The current Wikipedia:Sysop reading list is currently a bit boring, but perhaps better over time. In its list, it should include the Wikipedia:conscientious contributors reading list and this one should be a redirect to the meta list. But "conscientious contributors reading list" is too long imho, and could raise spelling mistakes. ::I would like also to see things about Wikipedia:groupthink, Wikipedia:NPOV perceptions, Wikipedia:Devil's advocate, Wikipedia:flame wars, and such. ---- I'm not a big fan of discussion by edit summary, so I'm continuing here. I said: :"rm libel -- sysops play no special role in disputes relating to libel" And 142.177.79.8 said: :"must respectfully disagree - they must spot it and raise issues with it same as copyvio - they don't decide what it is, just note potential for liability in extreme or obvious cases" Since when? I've never seen anything about this in any of the policy documents. What is a sysop to do, pray tell, when they discover a case of libel? Delete it without delay? Protect the page? Run a database query? -- User:Tim Starling 01:01, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Probably just, when they see some unusual reputation-searing quote or claim attributed to someone, sysops can go to that extra effort to validate it, say on Google, as they do for copyvios, weird titles, and if they can't, raise a flag just the same as copyvio. When Wikiquote is working perfectly, maybe quotes can be auto-validated so checking will not be the sysop's problem. But it's not like one can just ignore this stuff. Certainly not in "1.0". A good solution is usually to replace "Z claims A" with "Y describes Z's claim as A". This can be done by anyone but if sysops are doing checks for copyright they might as well do it for liability-inducing quotes and claims. ---- It would seem to me that some Case study of past matters where the charge (group dynamics) has dissipated would be helpful in articulating the precedents set and choices made. User:Kat 15:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Both of those terms need to be defined. Care to do the honors? ::You're not from around here, are you? -- User:Tim Starling 02:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Replying to Kat: yes, definitely. There are lots of interesting precedents -- the deletion precedents Daniel C. Boyer, Albertanism, Reciprocal System of Theory and Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' are a few that I've been involved with. There are banning precedents, say User talk:Michael/ban. As for page protection: what was that debate Ed Poor was involved in where he made an apology at the mailing list for inappropriate page protection? Can anyone think of some good NPOV dispute precedents? -- User:Tim Starling 02:17, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) *See Open Directory Project for recent NPOV issues that are now seemingly resolved. User:Angela 02:40, Aug 26, 2003 **Change of plan - unresolved again. See Talk:Open_Directory_Project/Temp for the discussion. User:Angela 16:03, Aug 26, 2003 ---- Why is selected articles on the main page listed here? User:Tannin 14:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Because sysops edit the main page, and they often edit it wrongly without paying any attention to these guidelines. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 22:01, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) ---- I've removed the link to "m:Main Page Neutral". I don't think that is something we should expect sysops to have to do. I recommend people read the things linked to from this page when I make them sysops, but I don't want to be recommending they read the whole of meta, as I don't think that is relevant to being a sysop. Also, "Main Page Neutral" that was linked to isn't as up to date as other index pages there like the m:Wikipedia one. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 15:46, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC) :Whoops. I added that because several people advised me to become familiar with meta after I was nominated, but when I asked if there was a good page to start from, they all said no. :) I've added your link to my bookmarks instead. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 17:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Administrators\'_reading_list:
Administrators'_reading_list
Administrators'_reading_list
Administrators' reading list
Sysops are expected to have an intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy. They are also expected to consistently demonstrate comprehension of these policies. This is especially paramount regarding the use of abilities entrusted to sysops which are unavailable to regular users and editors of Wikipedia. The following items are considered highly recommended reading material. These pages detail prerequisite knowledge required by a sysop: ==General== * Wikipedia:Administrators * Wikipedia:Administration FAQ * Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide * Wikipedia:Wikiquette * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ==Controversy== * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues * Wikipedia:NPOV dispute * Wikipedia:Protection policy ==Deletion== * Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators * Wikipedia:Deletion policy * Wikipedia:Deletion process * Wikipedia:Undeletion policy * Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion ==Requests== * Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention ''Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention'' * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested ==Vandalism== * Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism * m:Vandalbot * Wikipedia:Blocking policy * Wikipedia:Banning policy * m:Bans and blocks ==Miscellaneous== * Wikipedia:Copyrights * Wikipedia:Database queries * Wikipedia:Editing the main page * Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves * Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia administrators
Administrators' reading list
This belongs on the meta. --User:Dante Alighieri 21:41, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Not if we agree that ''every'' sysop ''should'' read this stuff. By all means, remove what you think isn't essential to dealing with the challenges sysops face around here. A more exhaustive reading list can always go on the meta later. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::Well, as sysops are not ''required'' to deal with trolls and whatnot, and as every sysop approaches the Wikipedia in a different way and has different interests and priorities, I don't see how any of it (even the Wikipedia pages) is essential. So I agree this is better on meta. --User:Camembert Belongs on Meta, too subjective.User:Eloquence 23:58, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC) I agree it probably belongs on meta (restored with EoT's original list), but it shouldndn't be called "sysop reading list". Firstly becasue they are properly called "administrators", not "sysops". Secondly because the very real "challenges" EoT mentions are challenges to ''everybody'' here. Or at least to everybody who participates in good faith. User:GrahamN :Yes, that is true. So is there a Wikipedia:conscientious contributors reading list? That might also include consensus, consensus decision making, open content, troll, and various things on the meta. As for the name, many of them call themselves sysops, and it's a nice short name. And it implies technical responsibilities, as opposed to admin-istrative, so it's probably better, if you don't want them to over-reach their authority. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ::I agree, let us make two different lists. They have little similarities anyway. The current Wikipedia:Sysop reading list is currently a bit boring, but perhaps better over time. In its list, it should include the Wikipedia:conscientious contributors reading list and this one should be a redirect to the meta list. But "conscientious contributors reading list" is too long imho, and could raise spelling mistakes. ::I would like also to see things about Wikipedia:groupthink, Wikipedia:NPOV perceptions, Wikipedia:Devil's advocate, Wikipedia:flame wars, and such. ---- I'm not a big fan of discussion by edit summary, so I'm continuing here. I said: :"rm libel -- sysops play no special role in disputes relating to libel" And 142.177.79.8 said: :"must respectfully disagree - they must spot it and raise issues with it same as copyvio - they don't decide what it is, just note potential for liability in extreme or obvious cases" Since when? I've never seen anything about this in any of the policy documents. What is a sysop to do, pray tell, when they discover a case of libel? Delete it without delay? Protect the page? Run a database query? -- User:Tim Starling 01:01, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Probably just, when they see some unusual reputation-searing quote or claim attributed to someone, sysops can go to that extra effort to validate it, say on Google, as they do for copyvios, weird titles, and if they can't, raise a flag just the same as copyvio. When Wikiquote is working perfectly, maybe quotes can be auto-validated so checking will not be the sysop's problem. But it's not like one can just ignore this stuff. Certainly not in "1.0". A good solution is usually to replace "Z claims A" with "Y describes Z's claim as A". This can be done by anyone but if sysops are doing checks for copyright they might as well do it for liability-inducing quotes and claims. ---- It would seem to me that some Case study of past matters where the charge (group dynamics) has dissipated would be helpful in articulating the precedents set and choices made. User:Kat 15:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Both of those terms need to be defined. Care to do the honors? ::You're not from around here, are you? -- User:Tim Starling 02:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Replying to Kat: yes, definitely. There are lots of interesting precedents -- the deletion precedents Daniel C. Boyer, Albertanism, Reciprocal System of Theory and Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' are a few that I've been involved with. There are banning precedents, say User talk:Michael/ban. As for page protection: what was that debate Ed Poor was involved in where he made an apology at the mailing list for inappropriate page protection? Can anyone think of some good NPOV dispute precedents? -- User:Tim Starling 02:17, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) *See Open Directory Project for recent NPOV issues that are now seemingly resolved. User:Angela 02:40, Aug 26, 2003 **Change of plan - unresolved again. See Talk:Open_Directory_Project/Temp for the discussion. User:Angela 16:03, Aug 26, 2003 ---- Why is selected articles on the main page listed here? User:Tannin 14:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Because sysops edit the main page, and they often edit it wrongly without paying any attention to these guidelines. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 22:01, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) ---- I've removed the link to "m:Main Page Neutral". I don't think that is something we should expect sysops to have to do. I recommend people read the things linked to from this page when I make them sysops, but I don't want to be recommending they read the whole of meta, as I don't think that is relevant to being a sysop. Also, "Main Page Neutral" that was linked to isn't as up to date as other index pages there like the m:Wikipedia one. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 15:46, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC) :Whoops. I added that because several people advised me to become familiar with meta after I was nominated, but when I asked if there was a good page to start from, they all said no. :) I've added your link to my bookmarks instead. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 17:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with Administrators\'_reading_list:
Administrators'_reading_list
Administrators'_reading_list
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
