Wikipedia talk:List of administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Images of admins

Hi all,

Sansculotte of the german wikipedia proposed to add a small image-gallery to the admin-page to give to the admins (that want to) a face. This could help give people more trust in admins, show them that we are open...

I simply find it a nice idea. What do you think? :-) Fantasy 20:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some admins already have their photos on their userpages. A centralised place with admin photos sounds interesting. Just a theoretical consideration: It would attract vandals and they could also easily copy, modificate, and redistribute the photos, as an attempt to ridicule the admins. Optim·.· 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a nice idea, Fantasy. You could pick one of Image:User MyRedDice.jpg for me, if you want to do it. Martin
Please see this page for a nice example :-) Fantasy 17:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I really like the idea. It's always nice to be able to associate a face to the username. Just for my own sanity, here's a list of admins (that I know of) who have/had pics on their pages

Wikipedia:Facebook has a fair few images, some of whom are admins. Given that, I'm not sure a specialised listing for admins has much advantage... Martin 00:25, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please make link to meta

Please help me! to make a link to m:Administrators of various Wikipedias in Article. I hope make link like a see also section ,and if possible, please update meta page when your langage adminstrators condithion will be changed. Thanx!--Suisui 12:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)@meta

[edit] Alphabetical ordering

I noted a few names that are out of alphabetical order, but I can't edit the page (hint - my name is not on the list). If someone would take the time, the following entries need to switch places:

  • (38 - Christopher Mahan) with (39 - ChrisO)
  • (106 - Jay) with (107 - James F)
  • (177 - pfortuny) with (178 - Pete (Pcb21))
  • (224 - Tim Starling) with (225 - Tillwe)
  • (245 - Zero0000) with (246 - Zanimum)

Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 08:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the protection, the page was the target of vandalbot attack. Tim/Tillwe and Zero/Zanimum were definitely out of order but Jay/Jdforrester and Christopher Mahan/ChrisO ([space] coming before 'O') are correct by username but not by the name listed. I'm not sure if the list is meant to be alphabetized by username or name displayed. For example maveric149 is listed under D for Daniel Mayer. Maximus Rex 08:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, I was wondering why I didn't see maveric149! Thank you, not only for the speedy response, but for an informative response as well. SWAdair | Talk 09:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think this should be ordered by user name, with other names in brackets. It's most likely people will search for the username than a nickname, and it prevents having to update it when people decide to change their nick. Angela. 02:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive Sysops

Is there a query or script that can check for inactive admins or is this checked manually. I noticed a couple inactive ones on the main list. (depending on the definition of recent activity). Rmhermen 03:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am not aware of a script. I went through the list and moved admins who had not edited in 2 months or longer to inactive. Maximus Rex 03:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to organize this list according to seniority. It would be a way of tracing the expansion of the community. 172 19:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Highlighting developer status

Don't you think that there should be a note in this list of sysops as to which of those are developers? Marcus2 00:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's helpful since the word "developer" in itself doesn't mean a lot. The page at m:developer explains which people have access to different things, but depending on your definition of "developer" they are not all "developers". The role is not related to adminship, and not all developers are admins so I don't see what benefit this would provide. Angela. 00:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Secretlondon

I'm removing the bit about Jimbo. Even if true, this is not a gossip page, it's a list of admins. If you think that info is appropriate, ask Jimbo. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it's true, then it's not gossip Xed 13:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(1) True or not this is not the appropriate place. It would be obvious to anyone that someone had it in for Secretlondon, rather than that this is really informational; (2) it is a POV bottom line. I didn't follow this issue, but I believe there was conflict between Jimbo and Secretlondon over her attitudes and I understand she sort of stamped out. Maybe she should even be desysoped, I don't know, but the method is not to append to her inactive notice. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 13:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

She should be desysoped for disagreeing with Jimbo? Extraordinary. "it is a POV bottom line. I didn't follow this issue" - So you think it's POV and yet you don't know what what your talking about. Revealing. --- Xed 14:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know what went on between Secretlondon and Jimbo, except that there was conflict. Maybe the substance reflects badly on her so she should be desysoped, since she has apparently abandoned the Wiki. It wouldn't be my call even if I did know all the details; I would be one vote. The POV bottom line I mentioned is that you decided to place your own analysis of fact in an inappropriate place. If you invest Secretlondon's leaving with some kind of deep meaning, why don't you just come out and say what it is, instead of posting trolling comments and telling people they don't know what they're talking about? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already discussed this issue extensively. I was banned for a week for criticising the Living Godhead Jimbo Wales for harassing secretlondon out of Wikipedia-- Xed 16:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where have you discussed this, so I can be enlightened, too? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See wikien-l and requests for arbitration. Angela. 19:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
That mail message is 404, Angela. Pakaran (ark a pan) 19:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] those who have declined nominations

I add this as an aid to those who seek out worthy candidates based on contribution history. There are a number of Wikipedians who do not want adminship for one reason or another. uc 21:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I suspected vandaliam by User:Dkroll2


--[[User:Dkroll2|Dkroll2]] 17:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) Response: Who is the coward?

No name, no date, no examples. I made some small mistakes (all documented on my talk page), and one kinda big one (all documented on my talk page), I got yelled at plenty, but all was fixed.

Look at the amount of effort in my short amount of time of expert data I've entered in comparison to any mistakes. There will be no question of my talent. I'm a color scientist. I love this stuff. If vandelism is ever suspected, it is something stupid I did, or the author does not understand why I made the changes. They should speak to me first. How can you allow people to accuse users and then not even sign, or give an example? How can I ever get this thread erased. It's very damaging to my reputation.

[edit] Duplicate admin

Shallot is now, Joy per this page, but both still have admin priviledges. This is a potential security issue if the inactive Shallot account is compromised. In any case is there a reason for Shallot to still have admin rights? - Taxman 19:45, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

No. I've asked for Joy's opinion at User talk:Joy. dbenbenn | talk 5 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

[edit] How many reverts are allowed for Turkic people?

It seems that if you are Turk you are allowed to do unlimited reverts (just because vandalism is the Turkish natural behavior?!), but everybody else need to learn how to become a Turk. And Wikipedia will soon become a Turkipedia.

No more Assiryan, Greek, Persian or Armenian subjects could be freely posted without approval from Turkic people. The principle of NPOV is now called TPOV (Turkish Point of View).

Just two examples: Talk:Safavids and Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. I have to admit: Turkic people (User:Tabib, User:Cantus, etc.) are well organized. They have a lot of energy to promote their myths and propaganda. Seems, that they now have their own people among Administrators too. They are not as naïve as the rest of us. They are acting rude, but they win in each and every discussion! Too many of them, and just few of us...

As a result, the famous Persian poet Nizami became a Turkish poet, Troy became an ancient Turkish city, and so on and so on, and, finally, Wikipedia became a Turkipedia, The Free (Turkish) Encyclopedia on-line!

I feel, I have to get out of here... and better cancel my check, which I mailed-in for fund rising, if it is not too late…

66.53.55.53 21:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since your choosing to post here makes it seem like you are trying to address Wikipedia administrators in particular, I have copied your concerns to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin status disclosure

I went six months without "trumpeting" (disclosing) my sysop status. Now I am thinking that was bad manners, and I have added a disclosure to my user page. Should we require that admins disclose status on their user pages? Or did I miss a rule? Tom Haws 19:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally, admins did not advertise their administrator capabilities on their user page. In recent times it has become more common. I do not do so, and do not encourage others to do so, though I can appreciate that the people who do in fact draw attention to their administrator "status" or other special role have their reasons for doing so. I believe that contributions should be evaluated on their own merits without regard to whether the contributor is an administrator. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I prefer to advertise mine in the interests of transparency, so that if people come looking wondering if I am one they don't have to go find this page to check. (I should certainly hope that no one considers my edits any more or less valid for it! I'd be appalled if anyone let crap edits of mine stand because I'm an admin.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 2 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

[edit] inactives

I've noticed a few folks who don't seem to be very active anymore and should perhaps be moved to the inactive list:

I've emailed Sortior and Aranel (no response yet). Ram-Man is a little sporadic, but hasn't been gone this long in quite some time (and even when he's been around lately I'd hardly call him "active"). ClockworkSoul indicates on his user page he won't be very active until 18 May, but briefly was after that and not at all since 21 May. It might be useful for somebody to check all the admins for current activity. This is something I could do, but probably not for a week or two (I have some other projects I'm working on). If nobody gets to it before I have some time, I'll go ahead and do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at admin activity levels and there are some who sporadically edit (for example 10-20 edits in the last 6 months). This isn't the same as "inactive since", but for someone looking for an admin these are folks who probably aren't that useful. Any suggestions for if/how we should notate such folks? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 29, 2005 15:25 (UTC)
How about "semi-active" or "occasionally active"? It could be helpful to split out admins who are unlikely to respond due to their inactivity. It would be ideal if there were a way to run a weekly or monthly query to sort admins based on activity. Carbonite | Talk 1 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)
We should have "semi-active", I agree. Ugen64 and RickK are also in a difficult position - Both have declared they have left Wikipedia, and so aren't a very good means of contact either. Should those who have declared they are leaving instantly be deemed "Inactive"? Hedley 2 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
Fair go. Have the decency to wait a little longer than 6 weeks. Tannin 2 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)

A weekly list sorted by last edit time or by edit frequency over the period week would do the job without categorising individuals.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

I think we should mention that to Mediawiki developers. Maybe Special:Sysops by last edit? Hedley 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Tannin 2 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
This would be much better than creating stratification among administrators. I dislike the "semi-active" category and think it should be merged back into the main list. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
I dislike listing users who make less than 10 edits per month as active administrators. I would vastly prefer an automated mechanism that measures activity (not simply "last edit"), but lacking that I think we should make a good faith effort to prune the "active" list to those who are actually active. If you feel strongly enough about this to merge the current semi-actives back into the main list, please do so. I started it based on the discussion above. Leaving it partially complete is VERY odd, so I'll continue to work on it until there's a clear consensus (or someone merges the semi-actives back into the main list). -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
(Originally posted to WP:AN) I have a script at User talk:Dbenbenn/List of administrators by edit count that could easily be modified to identify "semi-active" admins. I'll be happy to update the list of semi-active admins (if it's still around) on August 3. dbenbenn | talk 5 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
I've completed doing this via a manual pass. My criteria for semi-active was probably not mechanistically consistent (roughly 10 edits per month extending backward for the last two months), and there are some now listed in "semi-active" who I suspect have actually left (based on various user page comments). I think it would be good to verify the inactives are still inactive as well. I have started to modify your script to do both of these, but if you'd like to modify it and run it that's fine with me. -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 17:22 (UTC)
I've added a script at user:Rick Block/adminactivity that creates lists of active, semi-active, and inactive administrators. I'll update the lists based on this script. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion about inactive admins

There doesn't seem to be any policy about removing administratorship for inactive accounts. Isn't this sort of a basic security item that should be attended to? I would think after some period of unexplained inactivity (3 months?) a message should be left on the user's talk page, and if no response is made after some reasonable interval (2 weeks?) the account should be "desysop'd". I'm not sure what to do if the user returns, perhaps if they want to be an admin they should go through rfa again. Thoughts on this? -- Rick Block (talk) July 5, 2005 17:31 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially since images can't be undeleted. m:Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship says that Meta admins shall be desysopped if they haven't edited in the last 6 months, and have less than 50 edits in the last year. dbenbenn | talk 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
My feeling is that while there needs to be something, it needs to be only accessible to bureacrats. Basically, in no way can someone muster up a group to bang heads until an admin is gone. It would have to be a practical measure once its clear the admin isn't coming back, and should be very lenient (ie. 3+ months of ZERO edits) and very tightly controlled. But that's just my thoughts. Harro5 July 8, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
As someone who was recently inactive, I would recommend that if there is a policy of contacting someone on their talk page after three months (or whatever), they should also be emailed if possible (i.e. if they accept emails). If you're not making any edits, there's a good chance you also aren't checking your talk page. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I could see something where an account loses adminship if it hasn't edited in, say, six months. The key, IMO, is that it should be very easy to have it reinstated if and when the user returns. Isomorphic 9 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
I agree. I wouldn't object if I lost admin abilities after an extended absence (for purposes of safety), so long as it wasn't a big deal to get them back. Six months is better than three, which could easily be simply a summer vacation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

To revise and extend my previous remarks on this topic: Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year at one point. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they demonstrated judgement, and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, I strongly concur with Sarah's comments. First, use email as well, not just a message on their talk page, when attempting to contact them. Second, if the solution involves turning off the admin bit on the account, there ought to be some simple way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. Were it done, de-sysopping inactive accounts would be purely an administrative action, not any kind of judgement, and reverting that action should be equally purely administrative. PS: Why do we discard deleted images, anyway? (I know, I know, it's just always "been that way"). But it's often a pain that deleted images are gone forever. Why don't we change the system, to keep them? I know, I know the wrong place to be asking this.. :-) Noel (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Noel's agreement with Sarah. Have a "dormant" setting for their sysop tools if they wander off for a prolonged period, but make it a simple thing to switch back on. Having to put yourself up for a re-adminship vote creates a problem if you were gone for a long time - that there are likely to be a lot of new users who don't know anything about you. Of course, someone who hacks a dormant account can just as well re-apply for adminship on the user's past record. It would probably be better to have the person email a bureaucrat to get things switched back on.
I would like to add another option, which is to make it easy to ask a sysop to temporarily switch off your sysop powers if you plan to be gone for a while. As it stands, you can do like TBSDY and ask that you be de-sysop'd, but given the problems he encountered in getting them, I suspect that few people will make that request if they consider returning. Making it easy to get them back will probably result in more people making the request. If it really is a security concern, it would make sense to make it more likely that they get switched off, rather than less likely. Guettarda 15:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need to keep this page

This page (original version) long predates the availablity of the special page that lists all the administrators. Indeed, it dates back to a time when there were so few administrators that a casual visitor might pick one at random to contact regarding vandalism or a related matter.

Since the special page is self-updating, I wonder whether we still need this one. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A variety of folks have annotated their entries on this page with contact information or the signature by which they're more commonly known. This page also offers an opportunity to convey other information (like the, perhaps controversial, distinction based on recent activity levels I've added). It seems to me the overhead associated with maintaining this page is little enough that the benefit of allowing annotations makes it worthwhile. To maintain the activity level distinction I've written a script that nearly regenerates this page. I believe it would be feasible for the script to completely regenerate the page based on the current version plus the special page, which might be the best of both worlds. Any annotations anyone makes to this page would be preserved, but any newly created admins would automatically be added. The current version of the script is at User:Rick_Block/adminactivity if anyone's interested (what it doesn't do is preserve the annotations from the current version of the page, but this is clearly Turing computable). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I want to thank you for your edit in the Elvis Presley article. For several months now, I've been battling Ted Wilkes over the word "constipation", which he always removes after a while. Ted Wilkes is notoriesly hard to deal with, because he is almost like a zealot.

I don't care about Elvis, I just saw Eminem's music video "Without Me", which parodied Elvis on the toilet, and wondered whether there was anything in Wikipedia about that. To my great surprise, there was no mentioning of it at all, although it's a popular belief, which I have also seen in an episode of "Married With Children".

The way I see it, it's part of the popular culture, like Isaac Newton supposedly being hit with an apple or Caesar saying "Et tu Brute" before he died. It should definitely be mentioned in the article, which is why I got engaged in the first place.

Now I don't have a choice, because if I back down I'll feel like this whole NPOV thing is just on the paper but doesn't matter in real life. Basically, if I lose, I'll be very disappointed in Wikipedia, and I don't want that to happen.

Anyway, I'm glad you included the link to the "died on the toilet" page, which I didn't even know existed.

Thanks and keep up the good work! (129.241.134.241 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed policy regarding inactive administrators

Please see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and indicate whether you support this proposal on the talk page. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't remove my name in the full list of admistrators.

And please don't remove my name in the full list of administrators. Thank you. Australia boy(talk) 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This edit, though the signature says Australia boy, was actually made by 210.213.144.68 (talk • contribs). However Australia boy (talk • contribs) has twice added his name to the list of administrators, incorrectly, in my view. Certainly, there is no sign of any administrator activity in his logs. He also had on his user page that he was an administrator. I have removed that[1]. I don't normally like editing other people's user pages, as it smacks slightly of harassment, but I think that for the sake of new users who might be misled, false claims of admin status should not be left in place. AnnH (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The definative test is special:listusers. In particular, user:Australia boy is not an admin. Having ignored fair warnings, if he adds himself again he should be blocked for vandalism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect number

Just an FYI, but the page that lists all admins has the tally at 830. This list is missing 26 according to the count at the top. VegaDark 06:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other relevant info

I think some other information can be added to this page/{{admin}} that might be useful.

  • When they were made an admin
  • Link to their RfA
  • Number of edits - automatically but not routinely updated - or link to Interiot's tool
I would do it myself, but I don't do template editing that much and would like to see other's opinions. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a page, List of Administrators (with service dates) that shows the date when each admin was promoted. Once you know the date, you can go to Wikipedia:Recently created admins for a link to their RfA. NoSeptember talk 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Attention long-timers: I am trying to get the promotion months of the oldest admins (those who were admins prior to Sept. 20th, 2002). You can help at User talk:NoSeptember/List of Administrators. NoSeptember talk 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former administrators

I've merged two of the lists because several of the administrators who have "voluntarily" relinquished adminship did so under pressure from the community and at least in some cases would likely have had it removed involuntarily had they not done so. Therefore, the separation of "by user request" and "other" was misleading even if technically accurate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I think we should make a template out of this page, so if you type {{listadmins}} it will give you all the active admins listed on this page. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBDunkerson 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, so I did it with my list (with service dates) too. {{NoSeptember/Listadmins}} NoSeptember talk 11:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the template is that you can't subst it, or you will have to subst it twice. I think we should use a parameter like "subst=subst". Or we could have a second template like {{listadminssubst}}, so then it will have <includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly> on one of them, but on the other, there is no includeonly tags. What do you think about that? --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If you just want a static (rather than updating) list either copy/paste or {{subst:Wikipedia:List of administrators}} should be able to cover it. --CBDunkerson 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, plus the history of WP:LA is always there if you want the list as of a certain date. NoSeptember talk 23:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi active

What determines whether an admin is semi-active or not? --HappyCamper 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I run a script that classifies admins with less than 30 edits in the past 3 months as semi-active. Admins with no edits in 3 months are classified as inactive. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Three months is probably the right length to wait with people who just disappear, but what about admins who announce that they're leaving? AnnH ♫ 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be too hard to add a "last contribution" date for those in the "semi-active" list (although I don't update the list frequently, and for anyone sporadically active a "last contribution" date won't age very well). Anyone have any better suggestions? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I got ideas. These are all suggestion, so nuke them anytime you want to ;-)
Ok, what is the current definition of semi-active, 3 months? Well, could I make the suggestion that you could program it to update for those who don't make 50 edits in a month? If editors are spanning 50 edits over a month, that qualifies as semi-active, no? 3 months, to me anyways, really says an editor is inactive.
I think we should be able to add those who recently announce they have left or to who have had thier page deleted, to the inactive without waiting for the time span to take place to add them to the inactive list.
Oh, and if your looking for a person to update the page frequently under the semi-active category, I'm your man. I could follow a set guide to how you want it and could get it finished within a reasonable amount of time.
Cheers! The King of Kings 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been updating the list under the current definitions (originally discussed above, see #inactives) for about a year, and it seems to be a reasonable split. Really the only point is to give an indication of how quickly the admin is to respond to either email or a message on their talk page. There's a clear difference between those who make numerous edits a day (likely to respond in less than a day) and those who only sporadically edit (who may respond in something more like a week). I picked a breakpoint of 10 edits a month based on looking at the contribution history of several hundred admins. Although there are a few who move between active/semiactive under this definition there really aren't too many, and there aren't too many who go all the way inactive as well - i.e. for some folks, this "semi-active" state seems to be their stable editing pattern. I try to update this list about once a month. The process is not fully automated. I create the lists with a script, then manually edit the page to match the lists since there are annotations and things that would get lost using the automated lists. It usually takes a couple of hours altogether. Checking all the "semi-actives" for some manual indication that they've left would probably be good, but the script catches them after they've been gone for 3 months anyway (and I'm not sure there's a huge hurry - some folks actually change their mind). If you'd like to run the script and update the list more often, please do so. The script is at User:Rick Block/adminactivity. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever definition is used, I just hope for consistency over time, so that there isn't constant change just based on different standards. I have a chart that keeps track of some of these numbers. NoSeptember talk 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify, please: "sysop rights"

This term is prominently used in the List of administrators, but it is not defined. From context, maybe it's what administrators have, but that's not obvious at all. An explicit definition would be better. Lou Sander 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN quite clearly states in the opening that admins and sysops are the same thing. - ulayiti (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONE THOUSAND ADMINISTRATORS!!! SALUTE YO!!!

Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg

After witnessing the probable or the likely "auspicious-cum-great Wiki-event" about the two million passing mark record figures of all the Wiki-citizens a.k.a. the Wikipedian Population in this free-online-English-Encyclopedia for marginally more than half-a-month back then (i.e. seventeen days ago to be exact), now get ready for this yet another thrilling moment (not to be missed): BEHOLD!!! --- I truly praise, commend, and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia ONCE AGAIN for surpassing yet another "Wiki-record" with the ONE THOUSAND (or in figures: 1,000) mark of the Wiki-Administrators Population!!! Yet the number of this "Wiki-authorities" and not to mention "Wiki-authoritarians" from this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics plus) as more Wikipedians are arriving one-by-one and who aspires to become an administrator of this huge encyclopedia are vying and competing tirelessly for their requests of their adminship promotion to be a success! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Therefore, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on upgrading the maintenance work of this Wiki-Encyclopedia to the fullest! Yaaahooooo and I REALLY SALUTE to all ENGLISH WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS for their consistent hardwork!!! YEAH!!! --onWheeZierPLot 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion

Well, we've crossed the 1000 mark (as noted in the excited section above : )

The list page is long. And based on this comment, and likely others who have similar concerns, I think we should break the page up in sections for transclusion.

We have:

  • 1 Active
  • 2 Semi-active
  • 3 Inactive
  • 4 Former administrators
    • 4.1 Desysopped per Arbcom decision
    • 4.2 Other
  • 5 Temporary administrators
  • 6 List admin
  • 7 See also

I think the following would be simple enough:

  • 2 Wikipedia:List of administrators/Semi-active
  • 3 Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive
  • 4 Wikipedia:List of administrators/Former
  • 5 Wikipedia:List of administrators/Temporary

For #1, I suggest:

Note: this will likely eliminate the need for the template {{listadmins}}

As I presume that this is a high traffic page (etc etc), I suggest that we discuss this before anyone decides to be bold : ) - jc37 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It apparently isn't :-). The changes you propose look good to me. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking this would cause a problem with the automatic updating that Rick Block's script runs on this page to automatically update admin activity. If you change the location of the names, the script wouldn't be able to read where the names are. I think you should ask Rick Block before doing this so if he can see if it's possible to run it with the names trancluded on a template. — Moe 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the page would be annoying, but not ridiculously so (the "automatic" update is actually only partially automated, which is why I haven't done it in a while). I think a large percentage (>70%) are active, so it's not clear to me that splitting the page actually accomplishes much. A list of 700 is not that different than a list of 1000, and spreading the remaining 300 on 4 separate pages seems not at all worthwhile. There was a suggestion a while back to dispense with this page completely since special:listusers/sysop is the actual list. The only point of this list is the (roughly monthly) activity update and the ability to list alternate contact information. Maybe this list should have a link to the special page and list only the semi-active and inactives (I wouldn't mind if the desysopped list either went away completely or was moved elsewhere). Doing this would make updating this list far easier. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. wouldn't listing the special page for sysops also list the inactive and semi-active along with the active? If we break semi-active and inactive onto this page, we would have to find a way to list active by themselves, so I don't know how that could get fixed other than listing them here. But, I will be bold enough to move former admins to thier own page. — Moe 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
moved from user talk:Rick Block Hi Rick Block. First, thanks for updating the list :) Next, I wanted to ask you something. Me and NoSeptember were just discussing this as a thought.. What if we could just merge the Active and Semi-active. I know thats a big change, but we were just thinking that there is hardly a barrier to manually update this list. If it was just Active and Inactive, there would be a set barrier to go by. Can I get your thoughts? — Moe 13:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean not distinguish active and semi-active in any way? That's how it used to be, a little more than a year ago (see, for example, this version). How this developed was that I updated the inactive list by hand once or twice (by manually looking at each admin's contributions!) and noticed there were a fair number of admins whose contributions for the last three months fit on one browser screenful. I wrote a script to figure out active vs. inactive and basically arbitrarily also classified as "semi-active" admins making less than 10 edits a month (on average, over the last three months). This is where "semi-active" came from and what the objective criteria is. The point is that as far as responding to some admin-related request (which I think is what this list is really for), the semi-actives are much less likely to respond within a day or two but probably will in a week or two. The inactives are probably not going to respond at all (ever). I wouldn't mind having actives and semi-actives in the same list, but annotated somehow. The other thing we might do is ditch the distinction but include something in the intro text about how variable the availability of any individual might be and recommend before trying to contact someone checking their contribution history. I'd actually favor desysopping inactives and continuously semi-actives (per something like Wikipedia:Inactive administrators), but there seems to be a fairly strong sentiment that sysop is for life (and beyond!). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Given all of the discussion above, and considering that special:listusers/sysop is the actual list, perhaps we should just remove the "active admins" from this page. That would make this page a listing of all admins not active. Contact information for admins is likely to be located on their talk pages, so I don't know if it need be duplicated here. In looking over the list, in almost every case it's either a "formerly known as", "signs as", talk page and/or email information. (The two exceptions are bradpatrick and Jimbo Wales : ) - jc37 00:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if the "list of inactive" also was sorted by admin name. - jc37 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the list of active ones helpful. I know its long, but people know its a list and mostly just use it to search on, which is fine. I don't think we need to make finding an active admin any harder. Now that the formers have been moved to a new page, I think its just fine. pschemp | talk 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think that listing all administrators here, including the active ones, is useful. Removing the list of active administrators from the list of administrators would kinda undermine the whole point of the list. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You know.. How about a variant of special:listusers that sorts by last activity rather than alphabetically? That would take care of much of this page. And it would be helpful for more than just listing admins, obviously. - jc37 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the alphabetical sort. Makes it easy to search and see if a prticular person is an admin. As for searching, I don's scan manually, but use firefox's "find in this page feature" so length isn't an issue. I don't think we need to change it any further. pschemp | talk 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

>Re: jc37's request several comments above: I have the inactives (and also the formers) sorted alphabetically at NoSept/List of admins. As those lists get longer on WP:LA, it is getting harder to scan a chronological list for the one admin you are looking for.
> I like having the semi-active list at WP:LA. I merged active and semiactive on my list, but only because it was unnecessary to do it twice, and it is already done here.
> Also, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote a script to sort my list by promotion date here (the script is on the talk page). NoSeptember 10:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] activity update automation

I've made some changes to the script I've been using to do the activity updates and it's now essentially fully automatic. If anyone notices any problems with the current list or has any interest in the source for the script (shell and awk) please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I've posted the source for the script I've been using to do activity updates - see Wikipedia:List of administrators/script. If anyone else would like to run this, please feel free (I run it about once a month). If anyone would like to make improvements, also feel free. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about administrators

There are two points I want to know:

  • Who is the eldest administrator?
  • Who is the administrator with the most abilities? Pooter-the-clown 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians, let alone Administrators reveal their exact age here, so it will be impossible to answer your first question. I don't think your second question is worded well. Do you mean abilities as in extra Wiki-Power? If so, then nobody. Every admin has the same tools (except some admins are bureaucrats). If you mean abilities as in non-wiki/real life abilities then the question is very subjective and impossible with similar reasons to your first question. GizzaChat © 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can finish the last stage of Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan in Hard mode with a perfect. Does that count as ability? -- ReyBrujo 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language skills of admins

Shall we add language skills of admins as optional entries? As I administer Wiktionary, Wikisource, and Wikimedia Commons in addition to this Wiki site, I have found this tyoe of entries useful when seeking assistance involving non-English language.--Jusjih 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Admin not working

The admin template is not working correctly, probably because it's used a couple of hundred times on this page. Starting from number 66 on the inactive admins, all I see is "admin" as the name of the admin that is inactive. Someone wants to mass-subst: the templates? --Conti|✉ 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German admins

Is there an administrator who speaks German very well? Tüllner 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About User:Khoikhoi

Why can't I leave a comment on her talk page? Morris Munroe 13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

She has semi-protected her page, which makes IP's and newly registered users unable to edit it. It's probably because she gets a lot of vandalism to the page. She has provided another page here for new users to leave her messages. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummmm, "he". :-) Khoikhoi 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
About Khoikhoi, the username sounds turkish. Is she from Turkey? If yes, in what city or town does she live? Morris Munroe 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin list

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive

The admin list is getting kind of tough to load (crazy right, who the heck would ever want to check and see if someone is an admin). Any ideas about perhaps chopping it up in some way so as to alternatively load an alpha TOC and go from there? --hydnjo talk 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My first thought would be a simple alphabetical split like A-K on one page, L-Z on the next, and semi-active and inactive on a third. Of course the place in the alphabet would have to be determined, but I think doing it alphabetically would be the most neutral and useful, while still retaining the usefulness of listing semi-active and inactive admins separately. Dar-Ape 22:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Why does it take so long to load, there aren't that many lines? It's a lot faster to use the link to Special:Listusers/sysop currently. Also, the inactive section at the end seems to have a problem - entries from #65 onward don't list the name properly, but just link to the word admin (I can't see anything wrong/different with the code there). —Quiddity 22:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Short answer: the list is over the maximum pre-include template size. Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason why we need a manual list when we have an automated one? >Radiant< 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the manual list does differentiate between active/semi-active/inactive/former, which is useful.
One solution would be to remove the "active" section of admin list, and link to the automated one for that part. We'd lose the few dozen "AKA ..." style notes, but that seems acceptable. That'd reduce the page size by at least 75%. —Quiddity 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
>On the pre-include template size issue, the temporary fix is to keep the size of {{admin}} down to a minimum, see Template talk:Admin#This template breaks WP:LA for more.
>To reduce the size of this page I would either use a simpler template (such as {{admina}}) or no template at all. Wikipedians can figure out how to get to the various logs of someone, if that is what they want. We should not split the page, admins move back and forth between sections (active, semiactive, inactive) too often, that a split would be a major hinderance in editing the page. NoSeptember 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything that can be done to speed up page load (and reduce server load) would be good. I'll leave the technical details to whoever knows best :) (I'm unwatchlisting) —Quiddity 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know alot about the technical details surrounding it, but why not make each letter (or number) a seperate page and just have links to each letter on the main page?J.delanoy 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this page predates the category system as we now know it, I would think that this page should probably become a category just as the other lists of wikipedians are becoming categories. (See: Wikipedia:User categorisation.) Category:Administrators already exists. If the sub-sections are wanted (active, etc), perhaps we could just subcategorise it into subsections. See also Wikipedia talk:List of administrators#Transclusion above, specifically User:Rick Block's comments. - jc37 17:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming an administrator

Hi there! First, when I've entered Wikipedia I didn't wish to become an admin because my English is not very well and I'm from a foreign country. After a short time, I've changed my mind. My desire is to become an administrator. Well, how long will it take me to become an admin? Well, as I've said, there is one problem, namely my English is not very well and so I'm not able to help other users if they have several problems. But I really wish to become an admin. I'd do everything for that. Morris Munroe 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how you've been around half a month you have a long ways to go. It'll probably take yo at east 6 months or so, assuming you work at articles for deltion and mak sure you understand policy. Thanks for at least not immediately going to wp:rfa and trying to apply.--Wizardman 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok then. But my English is not well. Is that dangerous for an admin? Morris Munroe 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is likely a wikipedia in your native language. why not try editing that?Geni 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EList_of_administrators_4846.html"