360:
709:{{#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>WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} active admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}
254:, 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).
167:
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
153:
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
333:
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...)
136:
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
430:
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: Knowledge will soon have 1,000 Administrators on the
English-language edition: there are 988, as of today.
544:{{#ifexpr: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} < 1000|We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} which means we have {{#expr:1000 - {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}}} to go!|<div>WE have {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} admins, which means we have reached 1000!!!!!</div>}}
442:
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? :)
885:
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.
715:
We still haven't got 1000 active admins yet..... only 847 which means we have 153 to go. However, since 40 admin have been desysopped for various reasons, to date, wikipedia has actually promoted 887 users to admin status.
674:
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? ;)
918:
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. -
117:
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.
137:
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.
380:
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
871:
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
654:. 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 ;)
168:
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
423:
191:
69:
32:
372:
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
650:
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
414:
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. --
229:
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.
210:
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).
91:
are both about to have their voting periods close in the next few hours with a clear consensus for acceptance (congratulations to both)... and
1032:
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
926:
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 ;).
169:
453:
854:
We can't ignore you, we haven't ignored all the other desysoppings and resysoppings that have happened of late. {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} =
1026:
357:
Nominate more people? Actively look through the lists of users with lots of edits to see who should've been nominated months ago?
687:
52:
960:
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 :(.
126:
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.
1041:
961:
927:
905:
887:
860:
809:
676:
198:
In case people are interested, we've currently got 743 admins; it's a bit unclear how some votes will go, but one of
951:
21:
1052:
875:, only coming for homework and hurricanes. Try to count the other one, as I don't want to be the 1,000th :p
366:
40:
904:
will be # 1000 and
September 2nd will be the date (The month of September is a good month for it :).
572:
517:
625:
558:
510:
696:
487:
297:
I mean the frequency of new admins being made, not the existing admins showing up to a party! ;-)
178:
438:
already admins, this might be an interesting time to toss your name out there. For those of you who
1120:
756:
338:
325:
289:
259:
230:
142:
876:
845:
207:
199:
1124:
832:
790:
722:
658:
651:
407:
363:
346:
222:
92:
1156:
1022:
1018:
879:
848:
514:
415:
399:
203:
44:
1137:
692:
621:
612:
590:
554:
483:
359:
307:
275:
241:
252:
173:
376:
for admin. He's very active on image maintenance, and he would cause so much activity on
240:
Actually, if anyone is interested, it would be quite possible to model these things... --
942:
This whole discussion seems a good argument for not tracking who the 1000th admin is. ++
1104:
742:
734:
385:
320:
284:
255:
214:
138:
84:
1111:
1097:
1064:
985:
976:
947:
822:
780:
775:
766:
730:
719:
666:
655:
599:
567:
Why would we want a huge bit of javacode just to generate the sequence of characters
528:
497:
465:
444:
403:
381:
377:
343:
335:
218:
155:
130:
119:
56:
452:
I also envisage a race among the 'crats as to who will promote the 1000th admin. :D
1151:
1014:
738:
373:
164:
17:
550:
We still haven't got 1000 admins yet..... only 847 which means we have 153 to go!
1150:
I was hoping to promote xyrael, but Angela beat me to it by a few mins. :(
1132:
1090:
920:
608:
586:
298:
266:
60:
571:? Surely if we wanted that on the page, we could just type it in ourselves. --
1119:
Let the countdown really begin!!!! Like 1999 all over again!!! weeee!!! :D --
635:
631:
975:, but no one wants to mention it, for fear of that causing people to oppose.
690:, that we passed #1000 promoted somewhere between 30 and 35 admins ago... --
729:
Judging by how things are going now, the 1000th admin is going to be either
706:
Given this observation
Georgemoneys admin counter needs to look like this:
943:
872:
127:
88:
1009:
How many people remember the one millionth user? They didn't make even
1107:- closing 23:14 September 3 - current tally 46/0/3 (likely to succeed)
1100:- closing 16:16 September 2 - current tally 55/3/3 (likely to succeed)
1093:- closing 11:29 September 2 - current tally 52/6/4 (likely to succeed)
844:
Well ignoring me, and it's likely
Guinnog or Netsnipe, I don't count.
83:
I thought some people might be interested to note this. It looks like
39:
We have 99 sysops. Does #100 get a prize? Or at least a mention in
1085:
OK, from whats going on right now there are 4 main possibilities:
1114:- closing 3:52 September 5 - current tally 97/61/9 (mmm... maybe)
509:
I'd like to bet that the 1000th admin will turn out to be a
541:
Here is a cool little thing we could put on the rfa page:
820:<vader>Noooooooooooooooooo...!!!</vader> --
569:
Expression error: unrecognised punctuation character ","
778:being exposed in the not so distant future? = P --
898:Now that Guinnog has been promoted, it looks like
808:has messed with our 1000th admin count ;-).
170:Knowledge talk:List of administrators#inactives
217:, was only made an admin on July 1 this year!
80:- looks like FYCTravis was, indeed, 500th...)
265:So what can we do to increase admin turnout?
8:
765:I've got fifty bucks on Netsnipe. ;)
617: • 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
595: • 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
774:Why do I foresee a bookmaking scandal at
213:This is a pretty impressive rate - #500,
7:
51:A prize, yes... Daily inspection of
496:Let the countdown begin! :) --
319:of problems. Then it creates more.
464:That would be priceless. ;)--
28:
358:
225:| 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
410:| 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
1146:11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1128:07:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1059:. I thought this user already
1029:) 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
804:Ha ha, by getting resysopped,
712:To giv ethe following output:
628:) 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
561:) 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
454:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh
418:07:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
369:10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
330:04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
312:04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
294:04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
280:03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
262:00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
156:Shimgray (with login problems)
110:(or 0.16%) are administrators.
1:
1161:11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
688:list of former administrators
575:09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
388:15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
348:09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
244:00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
233:00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
1048:22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
981:19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
968:18:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
954:17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
923:17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
912:14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
881:00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
850:23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
816:23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
771:03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
725:05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
686:It would seem, based on the
683:11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
661:22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
604:21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
522:19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
491:19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
456:10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
449:03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
59:ten times for two months. --
1069:04:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
990:18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
934:19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
894:00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
867:00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
839:18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
797:19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
762:00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
700:15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
671:22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
638:22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
533:21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
527:What makes you think so? --
502:21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
470:21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
106:registered users, of which
1176:
133:June 30, 2005 21:29 (UTC)
68:A little admin-milestone (
122:30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
95:tells me that currently:
1053:user:NoSeptember is a XX
183:July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
150:1 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
47:08:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
251:According to Wikistats
158:1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
63:14:56 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
41:Knowledge:Announcements
1066:Firsfron of Ronchester
987:Firsfron of Ronchester
978:Firsfron of Ronchester
768:Firsfron of Ronchester
668:Firsfron of Ronchester
601:Firsfron of Ronchester
530:Firsfron of Ronchester
499:Firsfron of Ronchester
467:Firsfron of Ronchester
446:Firsfron of Ronchester
154:volunteering :-)
1040:as legitimate users?
434:For those of you who
402:is #750, it seems...
826: Netsnipe
784: Netsnipe
1038:NoSeptember is a XX
737:, depending on how
665:Eh. Point taken. --
598:Why not? :) --
481:and counting... --
190:Another milestone (
1131:And the winner is
652:Golden Gate Bridge
163:The first list at
93:Special:Statistics
53:Votes for Deletion
1127:
1055:is a great user.
984:2 to go! :)
400:User:Croat Canuck
315:Free beer solves
204:User:Croat Canuck
182:
149:
1167:
1159:
1154:
1143:
1140:
1123:
1067:
1063:a user. ;)
1046:
988:
979:
966:
932:
910:
903:
892:
865:
859:
838:
835:
827:
814:
796:
793:
785:
769:
750:
681:
669:
602:
547:which generates
531:
500:
468:
447:
362:
341:
328:
323:
305:
292:
287:
273:
176:
141:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1157:
1152:
1141:
1138:
1118:
1065:
1042:
986:
977:
962:
928:
906:
899:
888:
861:
855:
843:
833:
825:
821:
810:
803:
791:
783:
779:
767:
761:
746:
741:'s RfA goes. --
710:
677:
667:
600:
581:
553:
545:
529:
498:
466:
445:
428:
339:
326:
321:
299:
290:
285:
267:
196:
74:
37:
31:Sysop no. 100 (
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1173:
1171:
1163:
1162:
1116:
1115:
1108:
1101:
1094:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1057:Strong support
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
896:
895:
869:
868:
841:
840:
801:
800:
799:
798:
763:
755:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
672:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
579:
578:
577:
576:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
477:How exciting!
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
427:
422:1000th Admin (
420:
412:
411:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
248:
247:
246:
245:
235:
234:
231:Dragons flight
215:User:FCYTravis
195:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
161:
160:
159:
115:
114:
113:
112:
85:User:FCYTravis
73:
66:
65:
64:
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1172:
1160:
1155:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1134:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:Sure we can!
1050:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
989:
983:
982:
980:
974:
970:
969:
967:
965:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
953:
949:
945:
933:
931:
925:
924:
922:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
911:
909:
902:
893:
891:
884:
883:
882:
880:
878:
874:
866:
864:
858:
853:
852:
851:
849:
847:
837:
836:
834: ►
830:
829:
828:
819:
818:
817:
815:
813:
807:
795:
794:
788:
787:
786:
777:
773:
772:
770:
764:
760:
759:
754:
753:
749:
745:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
724:
721:
717:
713:
707:
699:
698:
694:
689:
685:
684:
682:
680:
673:
670:
664:
663:
662:
660:
657:
653:
637:
633:
630:
629:
627:
623:
620:Because why?
619:
618:
616:
615:
610:
606:
605:
603:
597:
596:
594:
593:
588:
584:
583:
582:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
560:
556:
551:
548:
542:
532:
526:
525:
524:
523:
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
501:
495:
494:
493:
492:
490:
489:
485:
480:
476:
469:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
455:
450:
448:
441:
437:
432:
425:
421:
419:
417:
409:
405:
401:
398:
397:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
368:
365:
361:
356:
347:
345:
342:
337:
332:
331:
329:
324:
318:
314:
313:
311:
310:
306:
304:
303:
296:
295:
293:
288:
282:
281:
279:
278:
274:
272:
271:
264:
263:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
224:
220:
216:
211:
209:
205:
201:
193:
189:
180:
175:
171:
166:
162:
157:
152:
151:
148:
146:
140:
135:
134:
132:
129:
125:
124:
123:
121:
111:
109:
105:
100:
99:
98:
97:
96:
94:
90:
86:
81:
79:
71:
67:
62:
58:
57:RecentChanges
54:
50:
49:
48:
46:
42:
34:
30:
23:
19:
1136:
1130:
1125:EVIL, EVIL!
1117:
1084:
1060:
1056:
1043:
1037:
1033:
1010:
972:
963:
941:
929:
907:
900:
897:
889:
870:
862:
856:
842:
831:
824:
823:
811:
805:
802:
792:
789:
782:
781:
757:
751:
747:
743:
718:
714:
711:
705:
691:
678:
649:
613:
591:
580:
573:Tony Sidaway
568:
552:
549:
546:
540:
518:
515:Deathphoenix
482:
478:
451:
439:
435:
433:
429:
413:
374:User:Nv8200p
316:
308:
301:
300:
276:
269:
268:
212:
208:User:W.marsh
200:User:Eliezer
197:
144:
116:
107:
103:
101:
82:
77:
75:
45:Tim Starling
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
1133:User:Xyrael
1044:NoSeptember
1034:X on Wheels
1015:The ikiroid
964:NoSeptember
930:NoSeptember
908:NoSeptember
890:NoSeptember
863:NoSeptember
812:NoSeptember
758:Talk to me!
679:NoSeptember
632:Duck season
622:GeorgeMoney
555:GeorgeMoney
511:rouge admin
283:Free beer?
242:HappyCamper
607:Because. —
424:Archive 68
192:Archive 43
174:Rick Block
70:Archive 27
55:twice and
1105:Winhunter
1027:Advise me
971:Maybe it
735:Winhunter
256:Carbonite
33:Archive 1
1153:=Nichalp
1121:Legolost
1112:Carnildo
1098:Netsnipe
873:Best Buy
731:Netsnipe
720:David D.
656:David D.
404:Shimgray
364:ナイトスタリオン
219:Shimgray
120:Shimgray
102:We have
89:User:Y0u
20: |
1158:«Talk»=
877:Jaranda
846:Jaranda
806:Jaranda
739:Guinnog
322:android
286:android
145:ᛏ
104:313,523
1142:abjotu
1091:Xyrael
1013:edit.
921:Taxman
901:Xyrael
776:WP:RFA
723:(Talk)
659:(Talk)
609:Centrx
587:Centrx
436:aren't
386:Coffee
382:WP:PUI
378:WP:IFD
302:BD2412
270:BD2412
131:(Talk)
78:update
61:Menchi
1139:tariq
1135:! --
744:Mr. L
636:Durin
585:No. —
416:Eddie
384:now.
172:. --
165:WP:LA
43:? --
16:<
1023:desk
1019:talk
697:blis
634:! --
626:talk
614:talk
592:talk
559:talk
513:. --
488:blis
408:talk
317:lots
260:Talk
223:talk
179:talk
87:and
76:(An
1110:4.
1103:3.
1096:2.
1089:1.
1061:was
1036:or
1011:one
973:did
944:Lar
857:847
752:fty
733:or
693:nae
484:nae
479:847
440:are
336:Tom
206:or
139:dab
128:You
108:498
946::
443:--
406:|
327:79
291:79
258:|
221:|
202:,
1025:·
1021:·
1017:(
952:c
950:/
948:t
748:e
695:'
624:(
611:→
589:→
557:(
519:ʕ
486:'
426:)
367:✉
344:r
340:e
309:T
277:T
194:)
181:)
177:(
147:)
143:(
72:)
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.