Wikipedia talk:List of administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Identification of Admins

With the myriad admins here, is there a way an automatic identifier can be added to their user page? It's not intuitive enough to come looking here, as you have to know this page exists in the first place to look it up. I imagine something like the Featured Article star in the top-right of their page. I know there is the potential for people to fake moderator status, but I'm sure it could be easily monitored. Perhaps something automatic that the server adds to their page rather than a template?

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "software supported" way is through special:listusers (which you have to know about). Perhaps this could just be made a little more public. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite what I had in mind, but it is indicative that MediaWiki (obviously) knows who are admins and can demonstrate that. All it needs is for that information to be conveyed directly on the userpage.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Many admins are in Category:Wikipedia administrators and/or display a user box, like Template:User wikipedia/Administrator. Since admins have no more content authority than anyone else, some admins prefer to be somewhat quieter about it (although it clearly can't be secret). Why is it important for this to be indicated on the user page by the software? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
To see if anyone is removing {{db}} or other templates without authority
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's actually OK for non-admins to remove db templates (but not the creator of the article). Let me say this again, louder. Admins have no more content authority than anyone else. If user A creates an article and user B adds a db template, any user C (not just an admin) who disagrees with user B's call can remove the template. If user B disagrees, users B and C need to work it out (preferably on the talk page). Whether user C (or, theoretically, B) is an admin is irrelevant to this scenario; users B and C have equal standing as editors. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the article

I suggest that each section of the article to be separated into separate pages, since whenever I open the Wikipedia:List of administrators, my computer gets frozen. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest be bold and do it. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "be bold and do it"? NHRHS2010 Talk 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Be bold and split the page. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps his or her computer freezes, preventing boldly doing it ;). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Splitting up the page into too many pieces (each letter) is going too far. I would think splitting it into about four pieces would be enough, don't you think? And it should be set up so the pieces can be transcluded easily into a combined list for those who want the complete list on one page. See Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/All as an example. NoSeptember 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I presume that can still be done even if split into pages? Anyway, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and the related: Template:A-Z multipage list. I would be happy to be bold and split the page based on this (we just did something similar to List of DC Comics characters). - jc37 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to make a notice at WP:AN when you do, in case anyone depends on having an unsplit version (I'm thinking of bot operators). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I run a script (not quite bot, but close) that does automated activity updates that I'll need to change to accommodate whatever split happens, but it won't be a big deal. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about a compromise: Still use the A-Z template, but merge some of the "smaller" pages. - jc37 09:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is looking after these pages

I had a run in with someone claiming to be an admin and yet when I checked he wasnt in the list. Naturally I had checked and then acted as if he werent an admin but it turns out he wewas. These pages arent much use if they are not complete. Is there no standard procedure to ensure the list is up-to date. I'll take this to the bureaucrat board too as IMO it should be them who endsure this list is accurate, otherwise it isnt a lot of use, SqueakBox 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the correct way to tell if someone is an admin is by checking Special:Listusers (they'll show up with (Administrator) next to them). WP:LOA tries to keep in sync in the wiki-way, but it is sometimes inaccurate because it hasn't been updated or has been vandalized. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Special:Listusers is the authoritative source, but this list will now be updated daily by user:Rick Bot. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generated number of admins

Alright so I know that you can find out how many users there are by using 7,281,713, can you find a number for admins by [[Special:Statistics|Template:NUMBEROFSYSOPS]]? Or something along those lines? If you know could you message me on my talk page. -Sox207 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the user's talk as well, but if anyone else is interested {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} expands to the current number of admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Which produces this: 1,556, for anyone who is interested. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-active and active in same list

I'm considering folding the semi-active admins (less than 30 edits in the last 3 months) in with the active admins, but distinguished somehow. Unless anyone objects, I'll do this in the next few days and unless anyone has a better idea I'll use a small italic font for the semi-actives. This will look like:

  1. (aeropagitica) (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  2. 17Drew (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  3. 23skidoo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  4. @pple (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Since the active admins are split into alphabetical sublists, segregating the semi-actives to their own list makes these folks jump around between pages when their activity level changes. Unlike most of the folks listed at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive who seem to be permanently gone, it's not terribly uncommon to move from active to semi-active and back to active. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope there will still be a count--I've just cited the number in enWP-l. DGG (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you further explain the reason to do this. Is it burdening the bot somehow? Or does the constant fluctuation just bother you? It has some value as a separate list for analysis.
If you do this I would suggest the following: 1) some sort of text indication should be added (like an * ) since some browsers may not visually distinguish italics or small text that well. 2) From time to time it would be nice to have a semi-active only list published for analysis purposes (once or twice a month maybe) perhaps somewhere in user space.
Sometimes, someone going semi-active is an early warning that they will shortly be classified as inactive, and a heads up is nice. NoSeptember 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the bot doesn't care - it just seems a little odd to be moving folks back and forth between pages. I'm OK with leaving it as it is if this doesn't particularly bother anyone else. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is most useful. Maybe a note at WT:RFA would draw more opinions on the subject. NoSeptember 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)