User talk:JamesR/AdminStats

Rank

What do the numbers in the rank column now represent? They were consecutive through 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) but as of 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC) they are not. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athaenara, I'm guessing that it's related to when they became admins. For example, Angela has low numbers, JzG has middling numbers, while yours is higher. PhilKnight (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility, but if so wouldn't they be the same in all sections? I see 5 different numbers for one admin, 3 for another, etc. — Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they seem to be in alphabetic order--sort by username and you'll see. DGG (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal socks on adminstats page

I asked some questions (diff) on WP:AN about the data on this page; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive192#Vandal socks on adminstats page. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Updated link — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

counts

Are these counts back to the beginning of their adminship even for the earliest-appointed admins? Or is there a starting date for the script? DGG (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These counts go back to the creation of Special:Log on 23 December 2004. For logs before that date, see Category:Wikipedia obsolete log pages. Graham87 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count

Just curious, because there haven't been any comments here in the past four years, whether these stats are current. I'm running into a number of Wikipedia stat counters that stopped in 2008/2009 so I was wondering if this one was more up-to-date. Thanks! Newjerseyliz (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering accuracy but decided to trust the text that says these are updated hourly. But how about increasing the max. # from 25 to say 100 to see more admins? The top ranks are likely stable from month to month as the counts are impossible high to achieve. jni (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jni, I decided to post a question on James' Talk Page and it doesn't seem like he visits this page to respond to questions. I'll cross-post any answer I receive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jni and Liz. I have just migrated the bot to Wikimedia Labs and have noticed your messages here. I am very sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have increased the maximum number from 25 to 100 as per your request. The stats are almost real time when updated every hour - they come directly from a replicated database. If you have any further suggestions for improvement, please let me know. Regards, — JamesR ^(talk) 09:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is a useful and nice service to have. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, — JamesR Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, only current sysops are listed on the statistics page. — JamesR ^(talk) 10:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this almost two years later, JamesR, what is now striking to me is the large amount of admins who, over their time as administrators, have less than a dozen admin actions. Lots of admins with just 1 admin action. Kind of makes one wonder why they went through the RfA process.

I remember looking at some old admin stats (pre-2010, IIRC) and being struck by admins who would pass an RfA and then leave Wikipedia completely. It happened more often than I'd imagine it would. And since they stopped editing when they became admins, we don't have a chance to ask them why.

Any way, thanks again for the stats...I always see something new in the numbers when I look at them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit

I'm curious why Explicit (talk · contribs) doesn't appear on the list, despite them having lots of actions logged. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just looked above and saw that only current administrators were listed now. This tool isn't as useful now.. :/ Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was due to never-admins who showed up asa result of moving semi-protected pages, which results in protection logs under these users' names. I think a better solution would be to include non-admins if they have any other log-type actions, as these would only show up for users who were admins at the time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change to MediaWiki that will inflate deletion counts

@JamesR:: If I'm reading this Phabricator discussion correctly, there's an imminent change to MediaWiki that will see all moves over redirects recorded in the deletion log. This will presumably mean that more non-admins will be listed after they move a page over a redirect. Graham87 08:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why there are 4267 people with admin stats

Some of them are never admins (there could be 1,500 people who was an admin at a point in the past) Thingofme (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updates?

Is it just me, or have the stats stopped updating since the last few days? Jay 💬 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has updated today. Jay 💬 15:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]