——————————————— JGHowes ———————————————
My statement of conduct
My statement of conduct
To the best of my ability, I pledge to follow the highest standards in my actions as an administrator ("administrative actions" mean deletions, undeletions, blocks, unblocks, protection, unprotection, protected page move, bot flag application, user renames, user rights modifications, block notices, and unblock declines on the English Wikipedia). I firmly believe that Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors.
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.
I understand that Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee for the following actions:
- "Bad faith" adminship (sockpuppetry, gross breach of trust, etc.)
- Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)
- Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)
- Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). To that end, I've enabled email and IRC.
- Repeated, consistent, or egregious misuse of a tool that is bundled with the administrator toolset (such as Blocking or rollback) – An administrator can be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely in order to remove access to those tools.
- Repeated or consistent poor judgment.
If a user believes that I have acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to me and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. If the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can proceed with dispute resolution or use the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request feedback from the community – however, complainants should be aware that the behavior of the filer is often also scrutinized. If a user believes they have been blocked improperly, they may appeal the block.
I acknowledge that if an administrator abuses administrative rights, these rights may be removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove the administrator user right from an account is granted to the bureaucrats and stewards.
In my view, if an administrator has manifestly lost the confidence of the community, he should willingly step down, following the procedures outlined above.
- ________ JGHowes _________