Wikipedia talk:Really simple guide to requests for adminship

The big three

So, what are the big three or four things? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to codify my standards for !voting and nominating at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_criteria. I'd say there were more than three or four big things at any one time. Some concerns at RFA are cyclical, others are consistent. Some people fail criteria that are important to me as a !voter, others are people I'd probably support, but wouldn't nominate because I don't think they'd pass. Quick fails on one or other criteria are "no need for the tools", "no content contributions", "not here long enough" and "recently blocked". Longer and more drawn out fails can include "overly extreme on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum", "recent incivility", "poor answers to questions" and "a dodgy history on alt accounts". Some of these things you can easily identify before someone runs - I don't nominate all the people who ask me for a nomination. I don't agree with all of those reasons for RFA's failing, many people who I think would make good admins failed or would probably fail RFA; Several people passed RFA who I opposed, including at least one who has since been desysopped. A completely different discussion would be what I would like to see as admin criteria if we were able to start from scratch, but I'm assuming we have to work with the current system and community. ϢereSpielChequers 13:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, here are some things that make an RfA run smoothly:

• Have a proven track record of excellent work in a given area, and a specific goal of expanding your work in this area in a way that requires administrative privileges.
• Interact with many people and establish a pattern of collaborating well and demonstrating sound judgment. (Generally voters will look at articles for deletion contributions as an indicator of judgment since statistics can be easily generated for them. Personally I believe demonstrating judgment in mediating disputes and weighing Wikipedia principles in other venues should also be sufficient, but I'm not sure a precedent for this has been established in the RfAs over the last few years.)
• Have a history of regular editing for a sustained period of time. People like candidates who have shown themselves willing to invest effort into improving Wikipedia.
• Make substantial contributions to articles. (Again voters like indicators that can be easily counted, like having contributed to articles at Good Article or Featured Article status, but having a large number of smaller contributions is also good.)

In the spirit of a "secret sauce" formula, having these characteristics isn't the only route to successfully attain administrative privileges, but it's one with a high probability of success. isaacl (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. Can't we boil all the above down to a handful of yellow lines? That's the whole point of this. Besides, the sections can have links to stuff. Here are the nuts and bolts when I'm voting:

• Not new
• Nice
• Good deletion judgement (the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc.)
• Some content creation?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

An individual voter might well boil things down to a three or four things they really care about, I suspect most do just that. The problem is that we have no consensus as to which three or four should matter. So among the voting community there are several more things that matter, some are ones where it is entirely possible to have over 50% support, but enough opposes to derail an RFA. As a moderately active nominator I try to keep tabs on the main ones as I don't want to nominate candidates who will fail, and when I nominate someone who can expect 10% to 25% opposes I want to have been able to warn them of that. I think this comes back to your purpose here. Do you want to update the RFA guide to give potential candidates an idea as to the defacto requirements for adminship, reform RFA by defining an agreed criteria for adminship and then empower crats to appoint candidates who meet the criteria, much as admins appoint rollbackers or reviewers, or just compare personal RFA criteria to see if some of us can synchronize? ϢereSpielChequers 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, you are absolutely right. I shudder at the term "defacto requirements" -- "common outcomes'" unavoidable cousin. Definitely not that, nor comparing personal RFA criteria. Very good points. Maybe this page should be abandoned.

The content was to be a shortlist of requirements based on common outcomes, but now I see the defacto requirement relationship. Hmmmm. Are there common outcomes? Widr's AfD participation is pretty minimal and he passed (199/17/8). Could the community approve of this page if it was peppered with disclaimers, including in the lead? Could the sections fill in for what is missing in the yellow lead? (And like WP:42, it would always be in the Category:Wikipedia essays about verification.)

The purpose, you ask. Well, it is not intended for viable candidates. It is to prevent unqualified hopefuls from wasting community time. I'm talking about those who see pages like Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, don't read it because it is too long, and run anyway. But maybe this would be closing the barn door... They usually sneak up on us and just run. A post to prevent a second run? Maybe this page would be useless. I just keep thinking we need some way to give three or four big, yellow lines to head them off at the pass. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Having refreshed my memory of the contents of the miniguide, I suggest tweaking that page to help achieve your objectives. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the advantage of making each point one to three words, and making people go somewhere else to understand what is meant. Also I'm confused when you say "the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc."; it sounds like you are in favour of including some additional information.

I do agree that having a short slogan can be helpful; I didn't bother to express my points that way as I figured it was more important to agree upon the more complete point first. I would summarize my points as follows:

• Have a specific need.
• Collaborate lots and show good judgment.
• Show commitment.
• Contribute to articles.

Consider each bullet point to be followed by text similar to what I wrote in the earlier bullet list. Note the parentheticals were for further discussion on this page; they would be replaced with whatever specific guidance was agreed upon as appropriate. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi isaacl. To explain "the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc.", I mean just like WP:42. The points are expanded upon in sections below.

Your points are good, but missing something huge. Admin work is a lot about deleting pages. Good judgement in that area is important. That is why AfD participation is often mentioned at RfAs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree if the prospective candidate plans to delete pages, participation in AfD is important. To me this is part of "Have a specific need": you should show demonstrated competence in an area and how your work could really benefit from administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't checked the logs, but I think all admins end up deleting pages. What area could a new admin work in that does not involve or lead to that? Maybe WP:RFPP. What else? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have to agree with you: non-admins can do many of the maintenance tasks that don't require the ability to delete pages. So I would include AfD work under the "show good judgment" guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. AfD, speedy tagging, PRODding, etc. Anything that shows good judgement about what pages should and shoudn't exist. And you want that because admins delete things before anyone else can see what happened. You want to know they are making good calls. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There have been over a million blocks handed out since Dec 2004, there are other admin duties such as setting rights for rollbacker and pending changes reviewer where a specialism in deletion is not needed. So there is a role for admins who never go near deletion but are interested in tools such as block or indeed protect. Most RFA candidates have a record in deletion tagging or discussion, and most admin actions are deletions, there are a handful of RFA !voters who think it appropriate to ask deletion questions even of candidates who don't intend to get involved in deletion. I regard that attitude as unhelpful to the RFA process, and I'd like to see us stop asking questions like: "Here is a question on policy re x. Sorry no diffs, you haven't expressed an interest in this aspect of adminship or done anything in the area, so I couldn't get a relevant dif from your edits." I actually care a lot about deletion and many of my opposes have been over people making mistakes in that area. But if a candidate hasn't been involved in deletion and says their interests are elsewhere then I take them at their word and assess them on criteria that don't involve deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that someone who has established credentials as a remover of vandalism and wants to receive administrative privileges to further their work would want to do both page protection and delete vandalism pages. Regarding blocking, personally I would not want someone to only choose blocking as their preferred administrative task, but of course others may feel differently. However, I did list as the first key characteristic that candidates should have a specific need for additional privileges that will help them do more in the roles at which they already excel. Accordingly, any appropriate indicators of sound judgment ought to be suitable. The problem is, of course, many indicators require time-consuming investigation of the candidate's edits, and a degree of subjective evaluation. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, WereSpielChequers. However, regardless of what a candidate says at their RfA, they tend to end up deleting pages. In fact, all of the 2015 successful candidates routinely do so. ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]) This isn't about specializing in page deletion. It is what admins consistently end up doing. Personally, considering page deletes are unilateral and almost never reviewed by non-admins, I want to know their judgement is good in advance. And I think the community at large feels the same way. Bad speedy tagging and poor AfD participation drawing opposes is evidence for that. Furthermore, in reviewing the last 21 RfAs, I see nobody who stated they would restrict themselves to setting rights for rollbacker and pending changes. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletions, blocks and page protections, in that order, are far and away the most frequent admin actions: see bottom line of this table. So it seems reasonable to expect all admin candidates to appear competent to use these three tools correctly. Other more specialized competencies like template editing, and non-tool accomplishments like dispute resolution, could be regarded as a bonus: Noyster (talk), 09:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Most admin actions are deletions and most RFA candidates intend to get involved in deletion. But there are exceptions, and plenty of other things that admins can do. Hundreds of admins have few or even no logged deletions, RFA candidates who haven't been involved in deletion are rare and can expect a few opposes because they don't fit the standard mould. But it would be an unfortunate development if it ceased to be possible for such candidates to get through RFA, not least because our greatest need is for admins who can staff AIV. ϢereSpielChequers 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletions, blocks and page protections, in that order, are far and away the most frequent admin actions: see bottom line of this table. So it seems reasonable to expect all admin candidates to appear competent to use these three tools correctly. Other more specialized competencies like template editing, and non-tool accomplishments like dispute resolution, could be regarded as a bonus: Noyster (talk), 09:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Most admin actions are deletions and most RFA candidates intend to get involved in deletion. But there are exceptions, and plenty of other things that admins can do. Hundreds of admins have few or even no logged deletions, RFA candidates who haven't been involved in deletion are rare and can expect a few opposes because they don't fit the standard mould. But it would be an unfortunate development if it ceased to be possible for such candidates to get through RFA, not least because our greatest need is for admins who can staff AIV. ϢereSpielChequers 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers. Those hundreds of admins who have few or even no logged deletions have few or no actions, period. Please view the table kindly provided by Noyster. Sort by DL column and it is plain to see. Those who are active are almost invariably very active in deletions. For this reason, the exceptional candidate who does not intend on doing deletions still ought to show good judgement in that area.

So, a potential candidate emerges who only wishes to handle AIV. He can work AfD etc. before the RfA to show good judgement or he can run with no deletion experience and we support because it would be an "unfortunate development" if we did not support. Are you suggesting the latter is best?

Now, I cannot refute your statement that the "...greatest need is for admins who can staff AIV...". I did not know that. I was under the impression that we have legions of youngsters working that area.

I am so, so sorry to be in disagreement with you, my very respected friend. And sorry for the long reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anna, if friends can't differ amicably then what has the world come to? I'm aware of that table, and I'll concede there were fewer active admins with few or no logged deletions than I'd expected. But there are other things to be aware of. Firstly the data behind that table only goes back to Dec 2004, many of the admins with few or no logged actions on that table are admins who retired in 2004 or before. Secondly much of the data on that table, and the vast majority of admins, precedes revision deletion. In the old days in order to delete a revision you had to delete a page and then restore the revisions that you wanted; now such deletions have been superseded by the revision deletion tool which is logged separately. Requested moves also requires use of the deletion tool. More broadly deletion is contentious at RFA when you are deleting the work of goodfaith editors, and especially over the various bear traps involved in Notability and claims of importance or significance. Vandalfighters who delete the occasional page created by a vandalism only account are tangential to the controversial aspect of deletion. So while I'm aware that most admin actions are deletions, and that the vast majority of successful RFA candidates will at least partially have been active in deletion, I still see it as an unnecessary raising of the bar to requite all new admins to have been active in deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers. As for the "bar", that is set by !votes at RfA. I am not sure how this guide page could influence that. It is, after all, intended for very new users as a way to communicate with them where walls of text would be ignored. Plus, any serious candidate would already know what skill set the community will consider suitable. I doubt they will see the word "deletion" in the "Experience" section and feel that they no longer have a chance.

On the other hand, good point about the types of deletions (bear-trappish, vandal-created, etc.) If you feel that "...often in areas related to deletion." should be omitted, that's fine with me. In fact, maybe the balder this page is the better. Plus, there are good mentions about deletion at Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship when searching the string "delet". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The latest version "plenty of experience, often in areas related to deletion." Actually meets the main point I was making above, that most but not all candidates will specialise in deletion. I would suggest the following wording "plenty of experience, including in one or two areas where they are ready to use the admin tools." This preempts some common reasons for RFA's failing, candidates who "don't need the tools", or "aren't ready for the tools". It does however leave "plenty of" as a hostage to fortune. One key problem at RFA has been that the quantity of easily measured statistics deemed to be plenty has steadily increased over time. If that was a genuine increase in standards then I'd be more sanguine about it. My concern is that the lack of an agreed criteria has exposed us to inflation of the most easily measured statistics at the expense of the important but less easily measured ones. In effect we have drifted into a KPI system with all the inherent flaws of a poorly designed KPI system. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I've swapped in your phrasing. If there is a way to handle the "plenty" problem, please say. Thank you so much. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting to the bottom of it

I just realized that the above is about our personal views.

Could we agree that the community broadly wishes to see RfA candidates with experience, and that the lack thereof is a common reason for opposes? Couldn't we come to agreement on a few, simple, uncontroversial yellow lines that help (mostly unsupportable) hopefuls understand what is commonly sought after in a candidate?

RfA support and oppose rationales say it clearly: They like the candidate to be trusted, experienced, and have some content creation.

Couldn't the yellow lines say those things with a section for each? The section on experience could talk about how deletion work is desired but not essential. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The page is looking good now! I'd add a few wikilinks in the text, and under "Content creation" I'd explain what is meant - something like "created articles of good quality or made substantial improvements to articles".

Next question - how do you see this page as coming to the attention of aspirants before they make a disastrous attempt at self-nomination? Working assumption is that they haven't looked at the advice pages: Noyster (talk), 10:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Noyster. Thanks for the fine feedback!

Indeed links will be added here and there. Good suggestion about text for the content creation section.

About your second question. This is where I feel a bit silly. I don't know. :) I guess the aim is to get it to them before they run, so maybe in the navbox in the "above" group. Maybe when we see them transclude badly, this could head them off at the pass. Maybe if we see they're preparing an RfA but haven't transcluded it yet, something like that. Maybe after they've run and SNOWed and they're about to run again. Others always post at their talks after a SNOWSTORM, but some of these newcomers can't handle more than a billboard message before zoning out. It could get the point across. But really, I am not sure where this would be used. Something just tells me we ought to have it handy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I see Anna, yes your 43 page would be valuable for ad hoc use, including as a reply to the frequent posts from newbies at places like Teahouse along the lines of "How do I become an admin?" But we could also link to it from Requests for adminship, RFA guide, RFA miniguide, Advice for RfA candidates, Request an RfA nomination, Optional RfA candidate poll, and probably others. The link would need to be formatted prominently, placed near the top, and worded as "Read this first" or something bold like that: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Noyster. Frequent posts at the Teahouse, eh? Nice. Good. One more use. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Snazzy name

Not 43, obviously. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:101 is available. (As in "Becoming an admin 101"). –xeno^talk 12:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

wp:101 should probably redirect to the help pages, another contender would be for a Wikiproject for the TV series. For someone outside the RFA bubble 101 is not intuitive as something RFA related. ϢereSpielChequers 13:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's been unceremoniously scooped without conceptual attribution anyhow. (and I think you're thinking of "The 100" as a TV series) –xeno^talk 15:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Definitely 101 ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"RfA secret sauce"? isaacl (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Secret sauce is a bit weird. I do like 101 best so far. I suggest it should be plan A unless a better name bumps it. Then again, ϢereSpielChequers does make a good point. Hmmmm. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, it refers to having a special recipe to follow for success (e.g. a special barbecue sauce recipe, tomato sauce recipe, dipping sauce recipe, etc.). It's a relatively common metaphor in some cultures. I think "101" is too generic by itself. "RFA101" might be better, but to me it sounds more like an introduction to RFA, which we already have. And we also have a miniguide, which perhaps is already close enough in spirit to what you are proposing for this page? isaacl (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFA42 is clear enough, but is it snappy enough? APerson (talk!) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

APerson, that's pretty darn snappy! Of course, WP:42 is a shortcut to its proper name, "Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything". Could RFA42 be its proper name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, so I guess RFA42 would be one of the shortcuts. We could do a parody of the original 42 full title, such as "WP:The answer to Requests for adminship, the universe, and everything", although that title comes with the possibility of users not getting the reference. Taking it in another direction, "WP:Really simple guide to requests for adminship" is pretty descriptive, but it could be made shorter. APerson (talk!) 03:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I and others have campaigned, without success so far, to get rid of the dated Hitchhiker's Guide reference in the title of the existing notability in a nutshell page. The title of any page should indicate the topic clearly, so for this one "Really simple guide to requests for adminship" would be along the right lines. There's no need to introduce 42, 43, 101 or any other integer: Noyster (talk), 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

RFA for dummies? Sorry, just half-joking... Lectonar (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

For the lowest chance of MfD, I like "Really simple guide to requests for adminship" or the like. With that name, would it be ready for the mainspace? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Project space (Wikipedia space) would be preferred :) : Noyster (talk), 22:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I meant. :) So, yes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! APerson (talk!) 00:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I figure that everyone who is actively participating at this talk page feels it is suitable for Wikipedia space, so I've stupidly no recklessly no, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes, boldly moved it. Thank you all. I hope the community helps shape it further, perhaps including a rename, and that it may survive any MfD, and eventually become useful. Cheers! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created WP:RFA42 as a shortcut to the page, since I couldn't think of a shorter shortcut. APerson (talk!) 02:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. Also, we can make others when we think of them. Thanks so much for the participation. Wikipedia seems to be going pretty tumbleweed these days, so it is nice to see so many working on this. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A good something-or-other

How about "A good reputation"? I think "reputation" encapsulates "a history of being polite and usually a clean blocklog" in a single word. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not bad, Roger (Dodger67). But doesn't "trust" act as a catch-all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I like that! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

have a clean block log.

While I agree that a clean block log is a plus, I wouldn't want to give people the impression that any valid block permanently rules out ever becoming admin. Plenty of people with ancient blocks have passed RFA. A few years back the rule of thumb was that any block from the last 12 months needs a very good explanation, but almost anything earlier was barely worth mentioning. I think the line nowadays is that a block from the last 12 to 24 months ago needs some sort of reassurance that the candidate has learned from it and the situation won't recur. So I'd suggest we replace " have a clean block log." with "ideally a clean block log, or at least one that's been clean for over a year". But I'd concede that to be a simplification, someone who used to be an edit warrer would worry people less than if they had been blocked for outing. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, good suggestions, WereSpielChequers. From now on, why not just make any changes you see fit? They have been pretty much on the money each time. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

OK done. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Time to add this page to others

Yes? Could someone else do it? I really jammed that opinion poll link into so many pages. I wouldn't want people to think I was promoting this page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anna: Someone else had already linked the new page in a bold box at the top of Optional RfA candidate poll. I've now done the same for RFA guide and Request an RfA nomination. RFA miniguide says much the same things in a different form, so I've left it alone. As for Requests for adminship and Advice for RfA candidates, these already have quite a lot of material at the top, so maybe we should solicit other opinions on the layout here: Noyster (talk), 09:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you so much, Noyster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Content creations

I have rewritten the content creation bit. I'm pretty confident from following multiple RFAs that the test for passing RFA includes some content contribution. You don't need to have started a single new article, we have 5 million that need improvement. I have seen the odd one or two oppose !votes for lack of new articles created, but such a position is too rare to need to warn people about. However some people want to be able to check that you can add content without plagiarism or overly close paraphrasing. Others want to check that if someone asks you what a reliable source is you at least have the awareness of having used some. Still others want to see that you've added something to the project as well as protecting it. Five years ago we had a couple of people pass on the strength of referencing a bunch of unreferenced BLPs that others had created, it would be interesting to see if that could be replicated now (I can't remember if they'd also drafted any content, but if they had it may not have been mentioned. Sometimes we get !voters opposing because the candidate lacks FAs and GAs, but I don't see such arguments on their own swaying anywhere near enough to derail an RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 21:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. And bah to those opposing for lack of GAs or FAs. I never had a single one because I'm a lousy writer and I did just swimmingly on my RfA. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing Limitations For Experienced and Meta Users With Background To Comply With

Hi everyone, Could we engage a little talk around the current requirements for Self nomination of Administrator Function please. My suggestion would be to implement other reliable sources for example, that can comply and support the ideal Background required to fulfill the role of Administrator assessments and experience that is to me, not relevant with the current Yellowed Highlighted Ideological or Typical Administrator functions.

We could start with the Administrator Background Experience, that can be easily provided by Wikipedia Partner, just to mention this one like Microsoft, who is leading and concretely have unified the action of creating the Administrator Function Role, supplying also many certification that are more than relevant to Administration procedures and Global role definition, to me is a Must add because the current suggestion is leaving way too much room for divagation of the specific subject that we aim to bring on a better roadmap to reflect a more up-to-date definition and so clearly oriented on the word itself Administrator and nothing else. We should not make any comparison with other roles or subjective fields because As a Administrator, you could in theory, do anything you want, as you wish and here, we want to keep this privilege on a open-source approach with devoted members or experienced user.

Basically, an Administrator, Should comply with the Administration of an Organisation, to administrate and manage the direct order from the Director, or President as of example, nothing more and nothing less. Administration Role is to as a reference, on-board new user, existing user, remove user, modify data about user, attribute policies and compliance based on the requirements of the Director.

From there, we can easily move the Administration roles, into a simplified definition and at the same time, stay on the current valor of Wikipedia and open-source knowledge Sharing. Speaking about myself here, I do own many Administrator Right and Roles, Certifications or diploma, but are not relevant to Wikipedia requirements witch is not relevant because Wikipedia do not supply Administrator Compliance and Policies nor did at the root of Administration Foundations, created the definition itself.

Thank you for reading my suggesting editorial, I appreciate your time anyone who will engage with this topic. Best Regards, Armand Brunelle SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)