User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Milestones
We have 99 sysops. Does #100 get a prize? Or at least a mention in Wikipedia:Announcements? -- Tim Starling 08:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- A prize, yes... Daily inspection of Votes for Deletion twice and RecentChanges ten times for two months. --Menchi 14:56 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
A little admin-milestone (Archive 27)
[edit](An update - looks like FYCTravis was, indeed, 500th...)
I thought some people might be interested to note this. It looks like User:FCYTravis and User:Y0u are both about to have their voting periods close in the next few hours with a clear consensus for acceptance (congratulations to both)... and Special:Statistics tells me that currently:
- We have 313,523 registered users, of which 498 (or 0.16%) are administrators.
Okay, if you include past admins who've had the powers removed, or gave them up, the "500th admin" milestone passed some time ago, but I was quite amused to notice it, and suspected someone else might also be. Shimgray 30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
- Yep, I noticed. Looks like I'll be 499th. I was kinda hoping that I could say on my userpage i was the 500th, but oh well. You (Talk) June 30, 2005 21:29 (UTC)
- do we have any statistics of how many of these admins are still active? I suppose any admin account without any edits for a couple of months should go into hibernation (maybe not 'revoked', but excluded from the count, in a way that the returning user can still have his privileges re-activated without too much ado) -- I think it's important to know how many active admins we have, in order to judge if we need more, which will have an effect on how liberally admins will be created here. dab (ᛏ) 1 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
- We generate stats for "users recently edited" and "users who are admin", so it should be possible to produce a second admin list - "admins active during the past two months" and put that somewhere to complement the existing list of admins. Having not got any such competence, this is very much not me volunteering :-) Shimgray (with login problems) 1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
- The first list at WP:LA is a list of active administrators. The second list (not updated very often) is admins who are inactive (no edits for several months). In the past day or two I've started updating these lists (by hand, using Special:Contributions). There seems to be an in-between category of admins who are rarely active (less than, say, 10 edits a month). These users are currently in the first list. I've tried to start a thread on how or whether we should distinguish these users at Wikipedia talk:List of administrators#inactives. -- Rick Block (talk) July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
- do we have any statistics of how many of these admins are still active? I suppose any admin account without any edits for a couple of months should go into hibernation (maybe not 'revoked', but excluded from the count, in a way that the returning user can still have his privileges re-activated without too much ado) -- I think it's important to know how many active admins we have, in order to judge if we need more, which will have an effect on how liberally admins will be created here. dab (ᛏ) 1 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
Another milestone (Archive 43)
[edit]In case people are interested, we've currently got 743 admins; it's a bit unclear how some votes will go, but one of User:Eliezer, User:Croat Canuck or User:W.marsh will almost certainly be our 750th admin in a couple of days. (This doesn't count those who were admined and have since been de-admined, mind you).
This is a pretty impressive rate - #500, User:FCYTravis, was only made an admin on July 1 this year! Shimgray | talk | 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- That depends on perspective. Since the size of the editing community is doubling every ~8 months, one could argue that we are still lagging behind. Dragons flight 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if anyone is interested, it would be quite possible to model these things... --HappyCamper 00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikistats [1], the total number of users increased 21% (35,946 to 43,531) from July to October (the latest month for which stats are available). The number of users making over 5 edits (in a month) increased 15% (12,713 to 14,434). The number of users making over 100 edits in a month was virtually unchanged (1,821 to 1,854). Carbonite | Talk 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- So what can we do to increase admin turnout? BD2412 T 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Free beer? android79 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I mean the frequency of new admins being made, not the existing admins showing up to a party! ;-) BD2412 T 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Free beer solves lots of problems. Then it creates more. android79 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Free beer has been the cause of 99.3% of my cited incivility. What I need is a few friends to share it with, to keep me from editing while intoxicated. (Unfortunately, I can type better smashed than most people can when they're stone-cold sober...) (For the record, I'm on beer #9 right now...) Tomertalk 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Free beer solves lots of problems. Then it creates more. android79 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I mean the frequency of new admins being made, not the existing admins showing up to a party! ;-) BD2412 T 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nominate more people? Actively look through the lists of users with lots of edits to see who should've been nominated months ago?
ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the best way to remedy backlog is to make administrators out of the people causing the backlog on pages. I tip my hat to whoever it was that nominated User:Nv8200p for admin. He's very active on image maintenance, and he would cause so much activity on WP:IFD that it would be backlogged for weeks. Now he still does a lot of work on images, but now he's around to process the listings himself too. I think he's single-handedly maintaining IFD and WP:PUI now. Coffee 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Free beer? android79 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- So what can we do to increase admin turnout? BD2412 T 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Croat Canuck is #750, it seems... Shimgray | talk | 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We also have a lot of new users (Myself included) trying there luck at the RfA. Of course they failed, but even they seem to covet being a sysop. -- Eddie 07:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
1000th Admin (Archive 68)
[edit]With all this talk of the RFA process being broken, or needing revision, or needing less rubbish on the top, an important (or at least fun) milestone is creeping up on us: Wikipedia will soon have 1,000 Administrators on the English-language edition: there are 988, as of today.
For those of you who aren't already admins, this might be an interesting time to toss your name out there. For those of you who are already admins, maybe you've got someone you consider a great editor who would make a good candidate. Now might be the time to start asking. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to say you were/nominated/helped promote the 1K Administrator? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I also envisage a race among the 'crats as to who will promote the 1000th admin. :D Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be priceless. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- How exciting! 851 and counting... -- nae'blis 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let the countdown begin! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to bet that the 1000th admin will turn out to be a rouge admin. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you think so? --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a cool little thing we could put on the rfa page:
{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go!|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}
which generates
We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only 851 which means we have 149 to go!
GeorgeMoney (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why would we want a huge bit of javacode just to generate the sequence of characters Expression error: unrecognised punctuation character ","? Surely if we wanted that on the page, we could just type it in ourselves. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because why? GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Duck season! --Durin 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because why? GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Because you'll start a fight and people will be squabbling to get there first. It's the same reason they don't have an official count of suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge. It's hard to believe but apparentlyh they worry it will be a magnet for people trying to commit suicide i.e. be the 1000th victim. Actually that analogy seems quite apt ;) David D. (Talk) 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh. Point taken. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment seems on point considering that the admin count can be easily manipulated by any admin (by a simple desysopping request). We've had a lot of those recently. Any more admins willing to take the plunge? ;) NoSeptember 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would seem, based on the list of former administrators, that we passed #1000 promoted somewhere between 30 and 35 admins ago... -- nae'blis 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Given this observation Georgemoneys admin counter needs to look like this:
{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted {{#expr:40 + {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} users to admin status.|<div style="background: lightgreen; border: 3px solid green">WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} active admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}
To giv ethe following output:
We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only 851 which means we have 149 to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted 891 users to admin status.
David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Judging by how things are going now, the 1000th admin is going to be either Netsnipe or Winhunter, depending on how Guinnog's RfA goes. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've got fifty bucks on Netsnipe. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha, by getting resysopped, Jaranda has messed with our 1000th admin count ;-). NoSeptember 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well ignoring me, and it's likely Guinnog or Netsnipe, I don't count. Jaranda wat's sup 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- We can't ignore you, we haven't ignored all the other desysoppings and resysoppings that have happened of late. {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 851 NoSeptember 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well try to, I only regained adminship back to try to help out with those horrible backlogs in the images while I'm not editing much because of school and my soon going to be job in Best Buy, only coming for homework and hurricanes. Try to count the other one, as I don't want to be the 1,000th :p Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not to worry, you aren't. I only meant to say that you changed which RfA will be the one to make us hit #1000. As you can see from the red number above your post, you only raised the number to 997. The 1000th will happen in September. NoSeptember 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that Guinnog has been promoted, it looks like Xyrael will be # 1000 and September 2nd will be the date (The month of September is a good month for it :). NoSeptember 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well I could really screw with you guys and go ask a former admin in good standing like Kim Bruning if they want their bit back. Which way was the betting going again? jk folks, move along, nothing to see here. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't Kim banking on his non-admin status to win a seat on the board? Even with 1000 admins, the non-admins completely outnumber us ;). NoSeptember 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well I could really screw with you guys and go ask a former admin in good standing like Kim Bruning if they want their bit back. Which way was the betting going again? jk folks, move along, nothing to see here. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems a good argument for not tracking who the 1000th admin is. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- My goal was to get a rush of nominations out of this thread and more admins as a result. I think that did not happen :(. NoSeptember 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- 2 to go! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- My goal was to get a rush of nominations out of this thread and more admins as a result. I think that did not happen :(. NoSeptember 18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even one edit. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I remember the one millionth article. If a user is defined by signing up, not editing, then the measurement was flawed. Can we honestly count X on Wheels or NoSeptember is a XX as legitimate users? NoSeptember 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure we can! user:NoSeptember is a XX is a great user. Strong support. I thought this user already was a user. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I remember the one millionth article. If a user is defined by signing up, not editing, then the measurement was flawed. Can we honestly count X on Wheels or NoSeptember is a XX as legitimate users? NoSeptember 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even one edit. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, from whats going on right now there are 4 main possibilities:
- 1. Xyrael - closing 11:29 September 2 - current tally 52/6/4 (likely to succeed)
- 2. Netsnipe - closing 16:16 September 2 - current tally 55/3/3 (likely to succeed)
- 3. Winhunter - closing 23:14 September 3 - current tally 46/0/3 (likely to succeed)
- 4. Carnildo - closing 3:52 September 5 - current tally 97/61/9 (mmm... maybe)
Let the countdown really begin!!!! Like 1999 all over again!!! weeee!!! :D -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And the winner is User:Xyrael! -- tariqabjotu 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)