text:
Animal Behavior/Sensory Biology

Sensory Biology
Behavior requires that an animal obtains information about its environment. Thus, to understand behavior we need to understand how organisms perceive their environment (i.e., sensory systems biology, sensory biology). By understanding how your senses gather information, we gain a better and more thorough understanding of their behavior. Common research questions in sensory biology focus on:

 * What is the stimulus (modality of information)? Is it mechanical, chemical, etc?
 * How does the sensory system encode the stimulus? Sensory filtering, transformation, transduction, amplification
 * Where is this information processed? Neural anatomy, network connections, etc.

A stimulus is any form of energy pattern that can be detected and registered by the senses. Its Dynamic range is the ratio between the highest and lowest values of a stimulus intensity, such as for sound or light. A signal is the physical coding of information (e.g., a message) capable of transmission through the environment. Sensory processing includes all central acts of information processing, which link the initial stages of sensory reception with the creation of a subjective sensory precept. Sensation is the neuronal activity resulting from the transduction of stimulus energy into electrical activity (also Sensory processing). A sensory cue is a statistic or signal from sensory input that measures the state of some property of the world that the perceiver is interested in.

Sensory systems allow us to form internal representations of our surrounding world, by transducing stimulus energy into trains of neural signals which are conveyed along specific neural pathways. Consider the following example using Jelly Beans. Hawaiian punch and Cherry flavored beans have the same color. Visual information about jelly beans is incomplete. By blocking your nose while eating a jelly bean, you prevent the smell from providing information. Taste does not allow you to determine which bean is punch and which is cherry. With olfactory information added, this decision becomes easy. If you allow air to flow through your nose while you taste the jelly beans, the cinnamon bean activates your trigeminal system providing critical information independent of taste and smell.

 * Reception the ability of a cell to respond when matter or a specific form of energy acts upon a Sensory Receptor: A cell endowed with the ability to absorb a specific kind of stimulus energy. Stimulus filtering (also stimulus tuning): A receptor responds only to a narrow cocktail of (physical) characteristics.
 * Sensory Transduction chain of physiological reactions which convert sensory input into electrical impulses. This process translates the amount of stimulus energy into changes in membrane permeability (e.g., opening sodium channels towards the production of an action potential). Initial receptor responses are often graded and proportional to the strength of the input signal (e.g. membrane permeability of stretch receptors to ions is proportional to the force applied to the receptor).
 * Amplification when weak sensory inputs are intensified
 * Transmission as input signals are conveyed to the nervous system. The intensity of the graded response determines the frequency of generated action potentials. The rapid depolarisation and hyperpolarisation of an all-or-nothing action potential spike are fairly uniform in amplitude and duration (< 2 msec). Frequency code: Information transfer based on the rate of action potentials of up to 500AP/s for intense stimuli. Sensory receptors may be neurons who themselves project axons to the CNS or non-neuronal receptors which activate neurons via synaptic (i.e., neurotransmitter) signals
 * Integration: Processing of information begins as soon as stimuli are received (e.g. Sensory adaptation). Summation of multiple graded responses influences the frequency of action potentials.

The signal's Signal-to-noise ratio refers to the power of a particular signal relative to the level of background noise.

Sensory Stimuli
There are three main forms of Stimulus Energy that can alter cellular processes and thereby activate sensory systems. A stimulus may be on for some time as a steady-state stimulus or may come on and go off again shortly afterward as a transient stimulus.

Mechanical
(particle movement - near field, pressure waves - far field, compressional vs. transverse waves): Hearing, Vestibular, Touch (via hair cells in the cochlea, statocyst, or semicircular canals) via hair cells in acoustic, equilibrium, and lateral-line systems are responsible for the transduction process from cilia that respond to shearing forces and end with processes that depolarize the cell membrane of afferent neurons. Stimulus specificity is provided through Accessory Structures (e.g. tectal membrane, statolith, and cupula). Touch: routing response in babies, lordosis, grooming. Sound and Vibration: mechanoreception, proprioceptors, sound window, transmission in water vs. air, boundaries (surface waves), complex content (frequency modulation, amplitude modulation), Example: bird and whale songs, human speech, echolocation in bats and whales, long-distance communication in elephants and whales. Movement of particles: Example: spiders

Electromagnetic
(waves): Light, Heat, Electrical, Magnetic (e.g., Phototransduction, heat sensors). Radiant Heat: thermoreceptor, Example: Detection of prey in rattlesnakes; Electric Fields: electroreception, Examples: Detection of prey in sharks, communication in electric fish; Light: perception of absolute light levels, color balance, polarization, Examples: fireflies

Chemical
(particle movement): Olfaction/Pheromones/Taste (via chemical receptors trigeminal, taste, smell Odor: chemoreception, pheromones species-specific odor cues (priming, releasing), Example: silk moths

Pheromones
One of the many ways in which organisms can communicate with each other is through the use of pheromones. An organism generates and emits these hormonal chemicals in order to relay a message to another member of the same species. Ants and bees demonstrate two prominent examples of pheromone usage, which acknowledges their incredible capability to organize the behaviors of the whole colony. Ants produce numerous different pheromones, each with its own distinct purpose. Ants secrete pheromones to attract mates, to signal danger to the colony, or to give directions to a location. Other pheromones act as deterrents keeping out unwanted ants from foreign colonies or preying insectivores. Still, other pheromones communicate ants to congregate. This explains how assiduous ants exercise remarkable cooperation in building a colony. Pheromones maintain the cohesiveness and organization of the complex ant communities. Certain types, such as alarm pheromones, produce a “releaser effect”, which induces a quick response and may be used to tell other ants to evacuate a dangerous area such as an approaching lawnmower. For example, when a spider approaches an ant will release alarm pheromones that alert all the other ants. Ants may also discharge alarm pheromones as a result from being diverted from their work, e.g. heavy human steps. Releaser pheromones are also used to mark territory. As the chemical deposited dries, it signals to other species members of the territory’s occupant. Other pheromones create a “primer effect” that entices other ants for actions. Such pheromones are useful in mating rituals and only affect ants of the opposite sex. Primer pheromones can send signals to the endocrine system, to make appropriate changes, for instance, ovulation required for successful mating. Biologist E.O. Wilson discovered in the 1960’s that the organic chemical for each pheromone varies tremendously depending on what signal it entails. Ants taste and smell a substance that evaporates off the chemical laid down by another ant. Wilson observed in slow motion films that ants do this by moving their antennae from side to side. For example, alarm pheromones are discharged into the air and expand in a circle of smell. Ants can determine the concentration of the pheromone, and thus determine the proximity of the source of danger. Bees are also well known for communicating through the use of pheromones. Like ants, bees have a variety of purposes associated with the pheromones, such as marking and behavior. Honeybees release chemical signals for marking food sources, marking their hive, in scenting potential hive sites, and in assembling swarms for flight. Although each hive has a particular scent, different colonies can be easily integrated during times when the honey flow is heavy since the colony’s odor is inundated with the scent of nectar. Virgin queen bees emit a behavioral pheromone released with their feces. When the new queen feels threatened by the workers she uses this pheromone as a repellent.

Another widely identified chemical signal in bees is the Queen Mandibular Pheromone (QMP). This pheromone ensures that the queen is the only reproductive female in the hive by compromising the reproductive systems of worker bees. It also provides an attractant signal to the drones.

Stimulus Properties
'''Table summarizes the types of information encoded by different stimulus energies. '''Some types of stimuli are better suited for some types of information. It is important to consider limits to information, communication, or stimulus use. In this table a + indicate how well that stimulus functions for that information.

Electroreception
Electroreception refers to the biological ability to sense electrical impulses. As water is a better conductor than air, electroreception is more common in aquatic creatures. Individuals utilize this sense to locate living organisms as sources of electrical energy.

Umwelt
There are many species-specific differences in sensory reception. Human perception utilizes 5 primary sensory modalities: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Receptors are classified based on the source of the stimulus. Interoreceptors convey information from within the organism; Proprioreceptors report on the spatial position of body parts relative to one another; Exteroreceptors obtain information about the outside. Subcategories of the latter include Somatoreceptors that capture events on the body's surface and Teloreceptors which monitor stimuli at a distance from the body. Sensory selectivity: refers to the subset of stimuli, which an animal detects and responds to; the Umwelt: Sensory World. Subjective set of stimuli to which an animal is responsive in a given motivational state. Each species has evolved responses only to those stimuli that prove relevant. It is this simpler world that actually falls within the animal's perception at any particular moment. (Jakob von Uexküll). : uses behavioral assays to establish sensory abilities of organisms.

Sensory Receptors
Sensory receptors are able to respond to a particular stimulus energy (i.e., sensory modality) and transduce it into neural impulses. Neuronal tuning describes a neuron's property to selectively represent a particular kind of sensory information. For example, an auditory system neuron which responds best to the sound of a particular frequency is said to be tuned to that frequency. In the visual system, neurons are tuned to particular objects, for example, edges of a particular orientation. The receptor's dynamic range''' refers to the stimulus intensities which a given sensory receptor is able to represent in a quantitative fashion. At its operating point''' the stimulus elicits a 50% response. Tonic receptors respond with a constant rate of firing as long as the stimulus is applied (e.g., pain). In contrast, phasic receptors produce a burst of activity during the onset of the stimulus but quickly reduce their firing rate if the stimulus is maintained (e.g., odor, touch, & temperature). With sensory adaptation, the organism ceases to pay attention to constant stimuli. The adequate stimulus for a particular receptor is the one that requires the least amount of energy to activate the receptor.

Mechanoreceptors

 * Hair Cells: Hair cells are sensory receptors that transduce physical forces into changes in electrical activity. Their name derives from a bundle of cilia on the apical surface of the cell. Embedded bundles of cross-linked actin filaments are anchored to the top of the cell membrane, where they control ion currents across a set of channels. Shearing of the tuft of cilia towards one side or the other changes the conductance of ions across a set of stretch-activated ion channels (i.e., tip links).
 * Stretch receptors (MRO): The muscle receptor organ spans the joint between two adjacent abdominal segments in crayfish. These are sensory organs that provide information about posture and movement of the individual. Each MRO has a thin muscle fiber that runs in parallel to a muscle bundle used by the animal to maintain the position of its abdomen. When the muscles contract or are stretched they cause the MRO to change its firing pattern, providing information to the nervous system regarding the relative position of the abdominal segments. There are two kinds of MROs. Tonic MROs respond to chronic stretch with continuous firing and habituate slowly. Phasic MROs respond to rapid changes in posture but habituate quickly when the posture is maintained for more than a few moments.

Electro-Magnetic Receptors

 * Light-sensitive neurons: rods (B/W) and cones (color) in the mammalian retina contain dense stacks of membrane with large numbers of light-sensitive pigments. The latter consist of a protein (opsin) and a bound chromophore (retinal). Retinal is able to capture photons, induce a conformational change in opsin, and thereby activate a G protein-coupled second messenger cascade.
 * Electroreceptors: Electric fish, Sharks, Platypus: Some animal possess specialized sensory cells that enable them to detect changes in the electromagnetic field around them. These organs can be used by predators to locate prey by the electrical activity of their nervous systems and muscles, or in some cases as a means of communication (when coupled with the ability to produce pulses of electricity as seen in some electric fish).
 * Thermoreceptors: Snakes: Some snakes hunt their prey using body heat. Heat travels through the atmosphere as infrared (long wavelength) electromagnetic radiation, and is detected by cells sensitive to changes in temperature.

Sensory Processing
The receptive field''' of a sensory neuron is the specific region of a sensory surface (e.g., area on the retina) that, when stimulated, causes a change in activity of a neuron. The spatial organization of receptors within a sensory surface is generally maintained throughout processing in the form of somatotopic maps'''. For example, sensory information maintains its structure (i.e. sensory information on the hand remains next to sensory information on the arm) throughout the spinal cord and brain.

Feature Extraction
Logical gates can be created by driving an action potential in the postsynaptic cell only if e.g., multiple input sources are active concurrently (i.e., spatial summation)

 * Coincidence detection: Activity in any presynaptic neuron alone is usually not sufficient to produce and action potential in the postsynaptic neuron. Summation of synaptic inputs can occur, however, when a neuron receives multiple excitatory inputs in short order. Spatial summation allows a cell to fire if two inputs are active at the very same time. The window of opportunity during which concurrent events must occur depends on the time constant of the neuronal membrane. For coincidence detectors the time constant must be short; if the cell works as a temporal integrator, it must be long.

When localizing a stimulus source, systems for the discrimination of left vs. right are often based on two sub-systems. These are often mirror-images of each other and located to the left and the right of the midline (i.e., Omega neurons in crickets). They are tightly coupled through lateral inhibition, where activation of one side automatically shuts off its contralateral (i.e., opposite side) opponent. Such a design is uniquely able to allow resolution of extremely small time differences in when a sound signal arrives at the ear facing the source than in the one facing away.

 * Contrast enhancement: Lateral Inhibition: Multiple units with similar characteristics are wired to inhibit each other's activity. The unit that fires first/strongest will prevent all others from firing. (e.g., Discrimination of left vs. right in auditory signals using a pair of Omega neurons in crickets).
 * Measure time-delay between two inputs: Delay Lines: Action potentials (AP) travel along axons at a defined speed. They thus take longer to arrive at the target the further the AP needs to travel. Multiple neurons with similar characteristics are laid out in a longitudinal array. They receive input from two sources one fed in from one side of the array, the other from the other side. Acting as coincidence detectors they respond best when the signals on both inputs match. Each member of the array is most sensitive to a particular time difference. (e.g., Spatial localization of auditory signals in the laminar nucleus of Owls).

Sensory Perception
Sensory perception is the interpretation of sensory signals within the CNS where it produces an internal representation of electrical activity from sensory organs. Specificity of sensory impulses derives from transmission via labeled lines, perception for a particular modality depends on which part of the brain receives the signals.

Most human senses have very high dynamic range. A human is capable of hearing (and usefully discerning) anything from a quiet murmur in a soundproofed room to the sound of the loudest heavy metal concert. Such a difference can exceed 100 dB which represents a factor of 100,000 in amplitude and a factor 10,000,000,000 in power. We can see objects in starlight or in bright sunlight, even though on a moonless night objects receive 1/1,000,000,000 of the illumination they would on a bright sunny day: that is a dynamic range of 90 dB. A human cannot perform these feats of perception at both extremes of the scale at the same time as the eyes take time to adjust the dynamic range to different light levels.

Example: Vision
Vision depends on the transduction and decoding of electromagnetic stimulus energies. Photons allow ...

Eye
Vertebrate Eye The resolution of the retina varies between different regions. A sensitive, b/w, high-resolution central region (i.e., fovea) is surrounded by a peripheral field with poor resolution and color reception. No photoreceptors are present at the location (i.e., blind spot)) where ganglion cell axons leave the eyeball to project to the brain via the optic nerve. Mollusc Eye Arthropod Eye

Visual Processing
Systems for the processing of visual information extract features from the visual field at multiple hierarchical levels. The photoreceptor cells in the retina detect points of light (image). The retinal ganglion cells respond to point contrast (form and color). Thelateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) provides a first rapid analysis of high-contrast, black and white features. The primary visual cortex (V1) provides a slower but more in-depth analysis with an emphasis on linear contrast, color, depth, object vs. background motion.

Retinal receptor cells (i.e., cones for color and rods for black and white) feed into bipolar on or off cells in the retina. Retinal ganglion neurons and LGN Neurons have center-surround characteristics and thus respond to spots of light of a particular size and in specific places of the visual field. Their receptive fields are circular and monocular. Many axons cross to the opposite side as they project towards the lateral geniculate nucleus and the primary visual cortex. At these stages, binocular information is brought together as information from the corresponding visual fields from the two eyes projects to neighboring places.

The visual cortex is arranged in multiple horizontal layers with outer layers focused on the processing of simpler features. Most neurons respond best to oriented bar stimulus, sensitive to motion, monocular or binocular. As the information proceeds further into the structure, features at increasing levels of abstraction are analyzed. Vertical columns across these layers primarily respond to input from one specific eye and respond to a particular feature orientation. Simple cells respond best to bars of given orientation at given location within the receptive field. These oriented edge detection neurons feed their output into motion-sensitive neurons. Complex cells are less sensitive to stimulus position within the receptive field and more sensitive to stimulus motion. Hypercomplex cells respond like complex cells, but feature in addition an inhibitory region at one end. Some neurons at the highest-level receptive fields are quite specific i.e. a neuron that only responds to faces, faces with particular expressions, or belonging to one particular individual (i.e., grandmother neuron). Flicker fusion frequency, the lateral geniculate body, and dyslexia

The visual parts of the brain strive for hypotheses about the contents of the outside world working in essence with an image of rather poor quality and thereby is able to produce our rich everyday visual experience

title: Animal Behavior/Sensory Biology


text:
Wikibooks:Administrators/Unstable

This page outlines a proposed policy for granting and revoking tools.

Granting administration tools
Administrators are active and experienced community members trusted to perform specific "administrative" tasks (delete pages, block users, etc.), provide timely assistance when needed or requested, maintain a general understanding of the current environment and accepted practices at Wikibooks, and follow all official policies and guidelines to the best of their knowledge and ability. Administrators are not authoritative or infallible. Community members may either request permission themselves or be nominated by another member. Nominees must be informed on their discussion page and must state acceptance of their nominations (next to the nomination) before any final decision is acted on.

Granting administrator tools is not a big deal and have no specific requirements. However, keep in mind when requesting, accepting, or supporting the new responsibilities that administrators are expected to:

 * 1) Follow and understand all official policies and guidelines as they are frequently responsible for their enforcement.
 * 2) Use the tools to benefit the community in accordance with policies, guidelines, and community consensus.
 * 3) Use good judgment and caution. Seek the opinions of other community members, and delegate administrative actions that might be perceived as imposing personal views or interests to others. Administrative activity is not an area where anyone should be bold or be uncivil.
 * 4) Be available through the wiki, email, the textbook-l mailing list, or by some other means listed on their user page, such as another Wikimedia project.
 * 5) Be active and alert to changes in the community. Only through activity can community members demonstrate a need to have administrative tools and continue to meet expectations. Administrators are active and alert when they a) have at least 1 edit within the past month and 20 edits within the past year, or b) have done at least one administrative related activity within the past year and respond to messages left on their user discussion page within 30 days.

Bureaucrats must determine when and if discussion reaches a consensus according to the high-impact decision making rules and may decide not to act either way. Only when no active bureaucrats are available may a request be made to Requests for permissions with a link to the local discussion.

Granting bureaucrat tools
Bureaucrats are active and experienced administrators trusted to perform additional tasks such as change usernames, create new administrators, and flag accounts as bots. Granting bureaucrat tools is a more weighty decision than the granting of administration tools, and therefore community members should take it more seriously. The same rules and manner for granting administration tools apply to granting bureaucrat tools, except only those with administration tools can be granted bureaucrat tools and candidates must be advertised in the Reading Room and the Bulletin Board.

Prospective candidates should be:

 * 1) Experienced administrators who understand the expectations of the community,
 * 2) Well-respected and trusted by the community and other administrators, and
 * 3) Able to keep a cool head under pressure

Granting checkuser tools
Checkusers are active and experienced Administrators trusted to perform additional tasks such as identify sockpuppets and repeat vandalism offenders. Granting Checkuser tools, like Bureaucrat tools, is a more weighty decision that should be taken more seriously. Prospective candidates must already have Administrator or Bureaucrat tools, must be announced in the Reading room and on the Bulletin Board, and must demonstrate a consensus at Requests for permissions. After consensus is established, a request must be made to Requests for permissions. See CheckUser policy for other requirements that may apply.

Removing tools
Community members can request immediate removal of their own tools at Requests for permissions, automatically qualify by not meeting activity expectations (as previously defined) without need for discussion or consensus, or be nominated by another member at Requests for permissions. Nominees must be contacted both on their discussion page and by email (when available) to be given a reasonable chance to contest the nomination. All reasons for a nomination should be stated clearly to give everyone a fair and reasonable understanding of why a decision on the matter is called for. All nominations must be advertised in the Reading room and the Bulletin Board. If a decision to remove the tools is reached, a request must be made at Requests for permissions. Anyone may reapply at a later date without prejudice.

=Alternative Removal Proposal=

Removal of Administrator Rights Due to Low Activity
As helpful members of the community, Wikibooks administrators are expected to provide the community with timely assistance when needed or requested and maintain a general understanding of the current Wikibooks environment and policies. In order to meet these expectations an administrator needs to be active.

If the activity expectations defined below are not met then any autoconfirmed Wikibooks user can propose the removal of administrator rights at Requests for permissions. It is a requirement that the proposer notifies the administrator on both their talk page and via the "E-mail this user" function that a de-admin proposal has been started.

Low activity is defined as follows. The administrator:

 * 1) Has not performed an administrative function (see here) in the last six months.
 * 2) Has performed less than five administrative functions in the last year
 * 3) Has made less than 20 edits to Wikibooks in the last year
 * 4) Has made no edits to Wikibooks in the last six months

Inactivity based de-admin proposals may be closed immediately as unsuccessful by any uninvolved administrator if at least one of the criteria defined above is met by the administrator being proposed for de-admin.

As the appointment and removal of administrators is a decision for the Wikibooks community, only the opinions of logged in autoconfirmed editors will be considered. Comments from editors who are not logged in or are not autoconfirmed will be removed from the discussion.

If after one month if there is no objection to the removal (including from the administrator being discussed) then a Bureaucrat will close the discussion and raise a request for a Steward to complete the de-admin.

If after one month there are any objections raised (including from the administrator being discussed) then a Bureaucrat will judge the consensus and determine whether to close the proposal as unsuccessful or raise a request to complete the de-admin.

In the event of a proposal being unsuccessful then no further de-admin request for low activity may be made for three months from the closing date of the previous request except where the administrator meets the criteria for removal due to inactivity defined below.

Removal of Administrator Rights Due to Inactivity
Any administrator who is completely inactive, as defined below, can have their administrator rights removed without discussion. Removal for inactivity is a requirement to protect Wikibooks against the risk of inactive privileged accounts being compromised.

An administrator is considered inactive if:

 * There has been no use of the administrator flag in one year.
 * There has been no edit to any Wikibooks page in one year.

In the case of an inactive administrator a notification will be placed at Requests for permissions. It is a requirement that the proposer notifies the administrator on both their talk page and via the "E-mail this user" function that a de-admin proposal has been started.

No discussion will take place for an inactive administrator de-admin. If the inactive administrator does not become active within the one month notice period then any user may request a Steward to complete the de-admin.

Reinstatement when Activity Resumes
Any administrator removed for inactivity can within a six month period following the removal request the return of the administrator flag. A request must be raised at Requests for permissions to give other editors the opportunity to raise any concerns.

Removal of Bureaucrat and Checkuser Rights
The low level of Bureaucrat and Checkuser activity required at Wikibooks means there is no activity requirement in order to retain these rights. However, any Bureaucrat or Checkuser who has their administrator rights removed for low activity or inactivity will also have their Bureaucrat and Checkuser rights removed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikibooks:Administrators/Unstable


text:
Wikibooks talk:Administrators/Unstable

My purpose with this unstable branch is not to differ significantly from the current text of this policy, but instead to help clarify some points that have been put into question recently. I am hoping that making a number of small changes to the existing text will be accepted more quickly and readily then a complete rewrite of this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold & unblocking
I'll read more as soon as I have time BUT as it stands I would have an issue with that bit. A couple of times I have unblocked an ip or vandal account blocked by another admin in order to block for longer (possibly after having looked at the equivalent WP page). It is not something I would do lightly but I would certainly do it. I stress I am referring to vandalism (by IP or registered user) blocks. I have also seen other admins do the same and have merely considered it interesting & instructive -- Herby talk thyme 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * We can put in an exception for blocked accounts which are later discovered to to be repeat vandals or something simialar. What we don't want is for the kind of nonsense that we've seen recently, where admins are all "being bold" and changing blocks around without any discussion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I put in an exception here for what you are talking about. It makes good sense that blocks can be made indefinite for the people who qualify for such blocks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Fine with me thanks -- Herby talk thyme 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

De-admin thing
Should the fact that they will be de-admin after a year of no edits be there? -- Herby talk thyme 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe so, I believe 100% that it's not a lifetime membership and that you shouldnt have it if you don't need it. So long as we are proposing changes, you could certainly suggest otherwise, but i think it's a necessity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This was a huge argument a year or so ago and had quite a bit of community approval and discussion. I'm hoping this is a solid issue and doesn't need to be constantly debated. -within focus 18:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Not trying to raise it (I'd be far harsher!) - just the fact that it should be in there -- Herby talk thyme 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one year of inactivity is too long to wait before removing the tools. A lot can and does happen around here in shorter periods of time. Having the tools should be about having a current need for the tools to the benefit of the community and a current understanding of the community, rather than for ones own benefit. I'm thinking rules should be more tight, while at the same time being a little bit more forgiving.

Perhaps 3 months of complete inactivity, no contributions or involvement in any discussions on talk pages, IRC, the mailing list, Wikimania, local chapters, etc. and no use of the administrative tools, in other words, a complete halt of any dealings with Wikibooks, should be enough to have the tools removed. Since there not around to use them, its not benefiting the community for them to continue to have them, so they should be removed. I also think an upper limit would also be useful, such as 6 months or more of not having used the administration tools at least a few times, even if there active in other ways, should be enough to have the tools removed. Again because its not benefiting the community for them to continue to have them, when there not being used.

However I think the bureaucrats, in there best judgment, should be able to give the tools again to anyone whose had the tools removed this way without much hassle and without the person having to repeat the entire RFA process over again, provided they demonstrate a need for the tools again to the benefit of the community and nobody objects. This principal of having a need to the benefit of the community should be emphasized more in the policy. On a somewhat related side note, I don't like how "trusted members of the community" was removed and think it should be reintroduced. --dark lama  14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Put the "trusted" bit back DL - it is an important aspect of admin for me (can't see where it came out). My views are pretty much the same as yours I think.  On "getting it back" I'm fine with those who give up voluntarily (just worked ok on Commons with a request and a quick 24 straw poll) not sure about those who have been de-admin'd though.  It's not top of my list but I'll look at the page some more though I'm sure the protesters will arrive.  They've just sent out the news to the inactive ones on Commons - some are coming back and saying "when did that happen, where etc etc" - I've resisted the temptation to point out had they been active they would have seen it so far! -- Herby  talk thyme 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I like what you've said but would like the limits to go to 6m/1y instead of 3m/6m since we're not overburdened with admin tasks here and some people really do disappear for more than three months at a time. Having the "easy in" for a later RFA could solve almost all these activity issues should a user return but I still like the buffer being bigger so it's not a common occurrence. Disagreements? I also agree that trust should have some stance here. An admin doesn't always have to be very well-rounded either, at least if they're experienced. The situation I want to avoid is having people become admins that are brand new and have only worked on their book. If they can spread out just a little bit over a longer period of time I'm more comfortable. Many of us tend to have personal projects and live in our own worlds, something that shouldn't be discouraged but admins should know to take a few walks around the block from time to time. -within focus 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand the concern with new users becoming administrators. The reason for suggesting 3m/6m is for a similar reason. After being gone for that long they can be much like new users, disconnected with the community and what the community will accept or disapprove of. That could possibly puts them in a position of not knowing any more what benefits the community. I think anyone who is infrequently involved with Wikibooks is better off finding other ways to help Wikibooks rather than having administration tools. I don't think infrequent Wikibookians with the tools benefits the community. I think its a good thing that many of the administrators have personal projects that they work on. I think someone who just pops in every once in awhile just to use the administrator tools, is not a good thing, since there not around to answer questions, which can discourage users. Administrators should be reliable, which is a part of trust. --dark lama  18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I kinda agree -I kinda don't! (not about new users, about those with projects).  Take Az & I, no projects but we have some of the highest admin action counts.  Not saying anyone is better than anyone else just that we all need to be part of a team (almost exactly the same lines as I  used on Commons earlier today).  Wiki experience is important, cross wiki experience may be good.  The problem is that you don't actually find out until they have the tools.... -- Herby  talk thyme 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * But both you and Az are around to answer questions and participate in discussions. So neither of you just pop in to use the administration tools. To clarify, I think some involvement in the community other then using the tools is important, and having projects to work on is good too. I'm not suggesting that having projects should be a requirement to be given the tools, just agreeing with withinfocus that having a project is a good thing and explaining my reasoning for suggesting 3m/6m. --dark  lama  18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Give the edit I've just seen you can count on my to avoid all policy here for sometime - just isn't worth the effort on this Wiki - sorry -- Herby talk thyme 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * reset

 * Yeah, what's going on at RFA is pretty silly. I'm still not wild about 3 months though just because we're slow turtles around here. I don't think policy will change that rapidly. Six months of complete inactivity just seems more acceptable to me. -within focus 12:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * How about 3 months of complete inactivity unless the person mentions on there user page that there going on a hiatus from Wikibooks for more then 3 months with intentions to come back? I notice a few of the admins already do mention when there going to be away for awhile, and perhaps this practice should be encouraged? So perhaps then 3 months from that time if they have not returned remove the tools? Something like when-will-return + 3 months with some upper limit on how long someone can be on hiatus without removing the tools? Maybe also encourage people to give up the tools if they know there going to be gone awhile but unsure for how long. --dark lama  11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm with Withinfocus, 3 months is just far too short a time for this. Nothing is going to change, policy-wise, in 3 months. We dont need to worry that after a 3 month vacation that somebody is going to be completely out of the loop. When the de-adminship policy had first been introduced, Wikibooks policy had gone through some very substantial chagnes. However, nothing has really changed here on the policy front in a long while (at least no substantial changes that would disorient an admin).
 * 6 months is better but still not enough. Wikibooks policy does not change substantially in a 6 month period. I think that instead of making the timelimit 6 months, we keep it at a year and we require all admins to register a valid email address. If there is an emergency where an extra admin is needed, they should be contactable via email. If an admin is completely inactive and cannot be contacted via email or any other method, then we can talk about desysopping them when we are inable to get in contact with them. A sysop who is generally inactive but available "on call" is far better then an admin who is absent and unreachable. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Its not about policy changes, or changes in the community which can happen more frequently, but about alertness and a continued need for the tools. Sure we're all volunteers and need a break from time to time, but I think it should be kept in mind that everyone whose got the tools accepted the extra volunteer work. If someone doesn't have enough time to do the extra work, its better to find someone who does, then having to wait for someone to try to track down someone by email to take care of vandalism or some other issue, because there inactive on the project. 3 months is a long time to me to be completely inactive without any indication that they intent to be part of the project still and 6 months an even longer time to be unresponsive to users. While in some ways I believe inactive should only include activity on the wiki, I did include in my earlier suggestion that email, IRC, the mailing list, etc. be included in determining inactivity. So if someone is contacted by email and responds they would not be considered inactive. So in that way I'm also broadening what it takes to be considered inactive, even if I don't completely like it, because I figured it would be a good compromise that people could live with. People would have to basically drop off the face of the planet with no means of communication for 3 months and having not indicated any intent to continue being part of the project, before being considered inactive. --dark lama  12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * 3 months is a short summer, and it's not inconceivable that an admin could take a 3 month tour of europe, or do volunteer work in an area with no internet connectivity for a year. It's also not inconceivable that a school student could not find a time to stop in and say "hello" for the last 3 months of a busy semester. There's a difference between having to be active and having to "check in". A person can be absent for 3 months, not missed a thing, and have every intention to return at the earliest possible convenience. A year is different, things can change in a year and what is important to you one day (ie Wikibooks) might not be important to you on that same day next year. A person who has been absent for a year has had plenty of opportunity, and has demonstrated no intention to return. A person who is inactive for 3 months is just busy and can still be back.
 * Hecktic reorganziation at work, a tough semester, a long vacation, moving cross-country (or even internationally), having children, etc. These are all things that could easily cause a person to miss 3 months of work. If you get temporarily swept up in your life, that doesnt mean that you are neglecting your duties here. People should be allowed to take some time off without having to inconvenience them when they return. 3 months is too short for this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * reset

A year is to long and 3 moths is also to small, some people may have problems in their personal life or unable to get any activity on the project (we also shouldn't force symbolic activity just to be kept alive). I have added a new expectation the be available this will solve most cases were we need to verify that the Wikibookian still wishes and intends in using the toolset.

I think 4 moths would be acceptable and 6 moths to a year if a good reason is given/stated on the user/talk page. By being available we can get in touch with the Wikibookians if a priority event needs participation (like voting on policies and guidelines (probably any high impact decisions in general would warrant an effort to contact them).

As for, and  don't have an active email I was going to contact them since they have been absent of the project for to a long time. Only User:Kernigh seems to indicate a new location on the user page. I haven't attempted to fallow it trough... --Panic 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Bit light on real info? -- Herby talk thyme 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The details are fleshed out at Protected page. I will post a link. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That page needs some decent work on updating its links, especially the list of pages currently protected. I suggest we don't maintain such a list since it will become quite unmanageable. -within focus 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * One battle at a time! Considering how long it takes to update a policy page around here, it's probably a better idea to focus our attentions on this page first, and that page second. I'll set up an unstable branch on that page, and try to prune out some of the garbage. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't want to start an unnecessary discussion but could/should they be cat'ed? -- Herby talk thyme 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a good idea. If there was some way to sweep the site and mark them, it could be helpful. -within focus 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * A small "This page has been protected" template (especially one that is very non-invasive) would certainly be helpful. We can work on that later too. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Split
I'd like to suggest that we split some of this out to other pages. I like what's been changed, but I think we need a separate page on blocking policy and the deletion business can be moved to the deletion policy. This page should be about what administrators do and who they are, not how they'll do it. -within focus 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with that 100%. We can move out issues about the blocking and deletion, and simply post links to those files from here. Keeping pages shorter and more readable is always better, I think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * There is an old proposal at Blocking Policy. I am going to delete the content of that page, and replace it with the relevant content from this page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Page importing
I know it's kind of obscure, but admins are also able to import pages from other wikis. I think some mention of this activity should be made here, including a mention of the transwiki policy at meta. Gentgeen 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That was something I didn't know was possible when I used copy&paste to get content from Wikipedia. So we need to find some way of letting non-admins know that they can post a request for an admin to import pages and where/how to do that.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I should note here that page imports are still fairly "experimental", meaning that the MediaWiki developers are still trying to look over what is going on with this "feature". Sometimes a page import "fails" to come across, which means you have to "delete" the page and try it all over again.  It is also something relatively new in terms of Wikimedia projects, so it isn't surprising that more people aren't aware of it.  I got my first taste of using this tool when Wikiversity was created, and I helped move some of the content from here on Wikibooks over to the new website.  --Rob Horning 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I've made a few! Having been working on Commons admin policy I thought I would review ours again. Others may disagree (of course) but these are "rights" not "privileges" for example and, in my view, admins must follow policy and set an example for instance. On Commons you will not get to be an admin without email being enabled and this seems sensible to allow folk to make contact that way and wish to say something "off wiki".

The "Activity" expectations confuse me. If they refer to activity after becoming an admin then we have policy for de-admin that specifies activity there. If it is a requirement prior to being considered for admin then the minimum is frankly laughable and should either be removed made more realistic. I'm out of time now but will return to this again I think - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I threw in a change or two myself, mostly just copyediting. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying about activity, but I don't see the activity requirement as being applicable to the pre-sysop period since that gets evaluated when the user is up for voting on RFA. After RFA we need to set an activity standard since there's no periodic evaluation period and so this provides that evaluation ability. Yes, it is a very long time for inactivity but that was the best the community could agree to at the time. I might not mind a shorter period myself, but would still like six months or so as a window of return. -within focus 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Work in progress but for info. They now have an agreed policy with 5 admin actions min in 6 months as the level for de-adminship for what it's worth (as I proposed it there I would obviously support something similar here) -- Herby  talk thyme 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea to me but I believe others here will disagree unfortunately. -within focus 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well .... there is you me & (I think) Darklama so may be worth trying something? My view is that admins should be assessed for their admin actions not their edits which I believe is a valid viewpoint.  Frankly on Commons if you can't find five things to delete you are not looking in the right place but here 2 or 3 (over six months)?  I'll be happy to work on it if you feel it worth a go? -- Herby  talk thyme 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see this whole policy get moved to the stable branch. However, when a policy is officially proposed a whole bunch of people usually come out of nowhere and hate something and progress will stop. After my last couple attempts at getting simple policies going basically failed, I became apathetic towards policy work. If you can spruce up this page (if it's even needed) and announce its vote I'd give it a support but personally I am busy enough with Muggles' Guide work lately to do a lot of policy work. There's a lot of proposals that could see work. -within focus 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Review
I did some changes, but I personally think that this should be a guideline rather then a policy. Couldn't it go into the admin policy entirely anyway? Thanks, Laleena (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you misunderstood the intent of this page. This is a proposal to update the current admin policy, rather then complement it. --dark lama  21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admistrators not recently working
the list Wikibookians with extra tools need to be reviewed.Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * This is an unstable branch and as such people tend to overlook it. You should be looking at Administrators or Special:ListAdmins instead. However I went ahead and updated the list for the unstable branch, since its been awhile since that list was last updated. --dark lama  18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of concurrent positions...
I have talked at least two times about the benefits and help to determine the commitment one can give to the project as he is ushered into a new function, there are several aspects of the issue that have come into the talks: A. Should there be a limit to functions a person may accumulate on at least Wikimedia projects? How far is too far?
 * Logic dictates that if a scarce resource (time) is to be split across several interests as the number of interest increase the time alloted will also decrease (even if we wish to be as participative as possible), there is no way one may create more time unless reducing the level of commitments. In fact this may be a important aspect on determining if a person will have the time to commit to the project or how efficient one can be on some functions (since projects aren't just different but the rules that guide some of the functions are very distinct across projects).

B. Should we benefit from an obligation to disclose/state this information?
 * It seems that the information is already public but not easily centralized or standardized, making it a requirement to state the occupied positions in some standard way would not only help consider A) but permit to establish a better collaboration to other projects, for a little more work as a downside some real benefits can be extracted.

I put this forward so we bring this point to the table on this proposal, it is uncontested that experience in a position across projects can be beneficial but having people going after functions as a sort of title and in position just to do the bare minimum shouldn't be what we aim for but this considerations should be studied or have an impact given the status of minimum requirements. This isn't a pressing issue, not considering the numbers of admins we have on the project (the other positions are somewhat dependent and mostly in scale), but is a pertinent topic to bring to this discussion. --Panic (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I see neither the necessity nor usefulness of such a limit. --Swift (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * And... (In this process I'm not after your commitment to the concept, but just your input or valid objections on such requirements/considerations, the above line doesn't provide any insight or advances the issue)
 * The points used above were taken from previous discussions on the issue. But I can provide you further examples. Like the use of checkusers across Wikimedia projects, this can be seen as colliding with the presumable privacy of users, we all have right to some level of privacy, if we so desire it. Since the projects don't force a common login, users do presume to have some independence across projects, having checkuser on more than on project does pose some issues in that regard, without disregarding all parties well intentions (I confess I don't know all the checks and balances that are available to that toolset, but from previous discussions assume that not much exists or is logged except in cases of blatant abuse of power, there isn't any requirement that prevents a checkuser to share that user x on project y is the same as z on project w).
 * Another consideration that has an impact on the availability of this information is that if a user loses some flags in other projects (due to abuse, wrong doing) shouldn't we consider removing the flags here also ? I'm against blocking users across projects (we do it for open proxys) but rogue admins+ flags is a different thing the use of the toolsets are extremely similar across all projects, and in this case all seem to fall down to very simple common moral grounds. --Panic (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * My previous comment was not intended to show the level of my commitment to any concept. It is a valid input as it states my view that you've failed to argue for the necessity or usefulness of limiting the number of tools that users may have across projects, and requiring users to disclose their other obligations.
 * Users are free to ask questions to users nominated for Checkuser tools, and nominees are free to answer or not. Community members then decided whether they feel happy about granting the nominee the tools. As far as I know, this natural process has served us well enough so far and I haven't heard of a single case of abuse. We don't need a policy for this. --Swift (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * So you are saying that having multiple commitments to several somewhat similar projects should have no barring on the level of commitment one can expect to bring as he/she steps into functions ?
 * I don't agree with that nor that it shouldn't be important on the attribution of the tools. The tools are given to be used not as a matter of title or achievement, this would be a simple way of elevating the level participation on those performing the functions, as long as the user is willing to perform them, not reduce the positions the something like a statute badge that requires a minimum of work to be maintained (this community expectation is already stated in several texts) and I have seen several times (not on Wikibook) users criticize other users that seem to aspire to accumulate such functions.
 * What I'm asking is if should there be a limit on the level of commitments for people that are put forward to perform such functions (not as a block to a need to use basis, but as a protection to keep people centered on this project and on the job).
 * A clear information on the functions of key personal on other projects IS useful and for the normal Wikibookians can be hard to establish, unless they are involved in the other projects too. Having the information that is somewhat public (most users on those functions share the login across project) centralized and structured would be important to coordination of work across projects, so things can be done more efficiently. Having people with tools across projects is often of great benefit.
 * Should the number of positions one has be somehow limited in number ?
 * I see some benefits on keeping people committed and interested to this project and to the functions they are expected to perform here. I'm not arguing for a ban (except in the checkuser case), but for the benefits to this project of reducing admin+ commitments elsewhere.
 * Some of the questions I'm putting on the table are similar to proposal to increase the minimum requirements of participation to keep the tools. In any case this issues aren't very pertinent to our present situation (mostly due to number of people in function) but are issues that should be considered before this draft is put for adoption. --Panic (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Only the opinions of logged in autoconfirmed editors will be considered"
This is not required since the process is not a vote. Any unlogged participant will have the same burden of providing a good reason for the objection to the removal, I do not particularly see how the identification is important (of course the CU can still be used in cases of grave allegations or clear misbehavior but asside from that since numbers are inrelevant what is the point of excluding anyone. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it in purely as a proposal following a talk page discussion with Pi zero. Broadly it comes down to whether we want to make this a "community" decision, which essentially means those with some edits here who are logged in, or an "anyone" decision which would include IPs. For Checkuser elections the Stewards were questioning whether editors with a small number of edits were "valid" votes (and for CUs it is a vote) so somewhere we should have something (even if it is just for CUs) that defines what valid means. On the removal part I do feel that proposals for removal of rights for "misconduct" should be restricted to logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts to avoid abuse by vandals. The alternative is a situation where all five active admins all get a "de-admin" proposal put up by a vandal operating multiple IPs or accounts which all have to be left to run their course... QU TalkQu 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't it suffice to only validate processes that have at least one registered user support (autoconfirmed will not make any difference, and there may be valid reasons for a unregistered user to initiate the process) But why protect only admins to this risk?
 * CU voting participation is a bit distinct since the process is not defined here but at meta (any requirements should point to the relevant meta rules of vote), since we can't change the process here...
 * I note that for instance Darklama is not autoconfirmed (nor do I see it as a needed requirement for admin). This is interesting because reviewers today need to be autoconfirmed and we may have several that are not. Beyond the ease of contact I do not see a special interest in requiring autoconfirmation (it is hardly a security feature). There are advantages but should it be an obligation ? CU and Burucrasts are distinct in this because of outside requirements and they are few in numbers. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename to “librarians”
Hello there.

I am a computer science author educator on Wikiversity, and I just came here to add my two cents here:

I have observed that on Wikiversity, administrators are referred to as “custodians”, which is a suitable metaphor.

Out of curiosity, I headed over here to see whether they have a non-default name here too, which is not the case.

Has anyone here ever thought about naming administrators “librarians”, as a matching metaphor?

I am not proposing this, but I just wanted to share this thought. Marcus Alanius (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC) | last edited: 20:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is very descriptive of the role actually. A librarian helps readers find materials, and advises on their use. Administrators here are more involved with the technical management of the library (ensuring books aren't defaced, fixing the shelves) and helping book writers, not readers. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the role of Librarian could be compared to the role of Docent on Wikivoyage? --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Administrators/Unstable