Wikipedia talk:List of administrators/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please make link to meta 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alphabetical ordering 

message: 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)
thread_title: Inactive Sysops

message: 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)
thread_title:  those who have declined nominations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: And please don't remove my name in the full list of administrators. Thank you. Australia boy(talk) 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit, though the signature says Australia boy, was actually made by . However  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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please don't remove my name in the full list of admistrators. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Incorrect number

message: I think some other information can be added to this page/ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other relevant info 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Former administrators 

message: Why can't I leave a comment on her talk page? Fünümän 13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ummmm, "he". :-) Khoikhoi 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About Khoikhoi, the username sounds turkish. Is she from Turkey? If yes, in what city or town does she live? Fünümän 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About [[User:Khoikhoi]] 

message: 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. Fünümän 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, ok then. But my English is not well. Is that dangerous for an admin? Fünümän 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is likely a wikipedia in your native language. why not try editing that?Geni 16:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Becoming an administrator 

message: I think we should make a template out of this page, so if you type  it will give you all the active admins listed on this page. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --CBDunkerson 11:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, so I did it with my list (with service dates) too.  NoSeptember talk 11:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 , so then it will have SUBST: 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)
replies: text: If you just want a static (rather than updating) list either copy/paste or  should be able to cover it. --CBDunkerson 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:ADMIN quite clearly states in the opening that admins and sysops are the same thing. - ulayiti (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please: "sysop rights" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''[[1000 (number)|ONE THOUSAND]]''' ADMINISTRATORS!!! ''SALUTE YO!!!'' 

message: 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:
* First, since it's the largest part of this page, and to keep the edit history intact, I suggest that Wikipedia:List of administrators be moved to Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active
* and then: Wikipedia:List of administrators recreated (as the proposed transclusion page).
Note: this will likely eliminate the need for the template 
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)
replies: text: It apparently isn't :-). The changes you propose look good to me. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (2005)), 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Transclusion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  activity update automation 

message: There are two points I want to know:
*Who is the eldest administrator?
*Who is the administrator with the most abilities? Fünümän 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questions about administrators 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language skills of admins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Template:Admin]] not working 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: To see if anyone is removing  or other templates without authority — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Identification of Admins 

message: 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)
replies: text: I suggest be bold and do it. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "be bold and do it"? NHRHS2010 Talk  00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and split the page. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps his or her computer freezes, preventing boldly doing it ;). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Who is looking after these pages

message: Alright so I know that you can find out how many users there are by using , can you find a number for admins by ? Or something along those lines? If you know could you message me on my talk page. -Sox207 01:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the user's talk as well, but if anyone else is interested  expands to the current number of admins. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which produces this: , for anyone who is interested. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generated number of admins 

message: 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:
# 
# 
# 
# 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whatever is most useful. Maybe a note at WT:RFA would draw more opinions on the subject. NoSeptember 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-active and active in same list 

message: Lists of administrators by verified subject matter expertise?  E.g., list of administrators licensed to practice medicine, list of public officials who are Wikipedia administrators, list of administrators who are lawyers, list of administrators who are law-enforcement officers, list of administrators who have _____ certification, list of administrators who can program in ____, etc.?  Inclusion would be, of course, strictly voluntary.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about this? 

message: It amazes me that there are so few active admins here that we could all sit down for dinner together on the Inspiration Hornblower. I imagine if we all left the dock together for such a dinner, we'd be torpedoed. Kingturtle (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  >1000 active admins 

message: The bot that normally maintains this page (Rick Bot) will be offline for about a week due to hardware problems, but will resume its normal activities after the hardware's fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot temporarily offline 

message: Was there a discussion someplace about this move?  I think the old name was actually better - I mean, we don't capitalize "administrator" do we? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from "List of administrators" 

message: While the erosion of active admins is a possible problem, i am pretty sure that it hasn't fallen from 951 on February 17 to 724 today. In fact, the list of semi-active ones now contains many that don't fit the criteria, e.g User:Fritzpoll or  User:Iridescent--Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This seems to be a bug.  I believe I've fixed it and am rerunning the bot now (it takes quite a while). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume 947 is a more believable number. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks reasonable to me as well in light of the Feb 17 number. The Rfa crowd jumped in on this anyways...--Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  current number is certainly wrong 

message: Why does this page have the links for other languages? Enigmamsg 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: Maybe you are not the right person but if so then can you please redirect me to one?  I am getting repeatedly censored and personally attacked at the Obama Discussion page (Photo Agenda Section).  I want some of these people to be held to account for their personal attacks and abuse of tools.  thank you JohnHistory (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Q 

message: Copied from wt:List of administrators/A-F
how many Indians,Asian and African administrators are there in Wikipedia,are Indian,Asian,African[black]contributions compiled or edited by persons or administrators from these races or others,how is racial  discrimination avoided.
please don't delete this message,require sincere answers,not the usual troll like answers given by self important administrators.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by prophetvcn (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no one keeps any stats like this for any category of user, administrators or not.  Most users don't self-identify their ethnicity either, which would make it difficult for any racial discrimination to occur, even if anyone were inclined to do so.  Any discrimination would be a direct violation of Wikipedia:Civility which is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars summarizing Wikipedia's fundamental principles. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality is the best you're gonna get. -- œ™ 11:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins by ethnicity 

message: I've converted the list from using  to  based on a suggestion from user:Jeff G., see user talk:Rick Bot#WP:LA/Active.  If anyone has any problems with this change, please speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize I'm speaking up a bit late, but.. According to user talk:Rick Bot#WP:LA/Active the change from  to  was made only to the WP:LA/Active list because it was one long list on a single page. However since the others are split up to not be so large maybe it would be more informative to readers to use  for the split lists WP:List of administrators/A-F, WP:List of administrators/G-O, and WP:List of administrators/P-Z. -- œ™ 11:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep WP:LA/Active in sync with the sublists, it simply transcludes the sublists.  Since the sublists are bot-maintained it would be possible to generate WP:LA/Active using  rather than , but everything (and more) available from the  links is available from the logs link listed by  (but with 2 clicks rather than just one).  The way I look at it,  is actually displaying more information than . -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  user3 rather than admin 

message: The number of active admins is still eroding at a loss rate of about 100 each year. At what point do we start to panic? -- œ™ 06:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Active admins still on the decline

message: Is there anywhere where I can find a list of admins by nationality? Specifically, I'm looking for Puerto Rican admins. Feedback ☎ 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: So, seriously, there are only 652 active Admins on the English Wikipedia? That doesn't seem like enough. That also means that the majority of 1400+ Admins are inactive. That's a terrible situation for an organization. I hope this is being addressed. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It  is being  addressed -  perennially through  a lot  of talk but  without  much  effect. The criterion  of Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months is far too  low IMO to  be truly  representative of 'active'. While a lot  of admins occasionally  stab away  in  the background at  uncontentious tasks such  as page moves, history  moves, AfD closures, CSD deletions, ets, those who  are regularly in  the forefront  of activity addressing  behavioural  issues and editing  disputes, for example,  are probably  around only  30 or so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortage of Admins? 

message: the updated date is a red link (march 13), Enigmamsg 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As would all of them be, there aren't typically articles with these titles. I dewikilinked it, hopefully won't break the bot; if it does, rewikilink and poke bot owner. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  red link?