Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Lowest edit count ever apppointed an admin?

In the current WP:AELECT, there's a candidate with a surprisingly low edit count. A discussion about that included the attached graph. Did we really once appoint an admin with under 100 edits? RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

In fairness, that user was already a deWiki admin. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a long time ago. For a start, what is relevant today is that the entry bar is that your account is extended-confirmed, i.e. you need a minimum of 500 edits (see WP:BECOMEADMIN). But even that is unrealistically low. In the last decade, the lowest edit count was 2,370 edits: GoldenRing in 2017. Schwede66 11:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The criteria has both ossified and inflated since 2008. Things are much less of a Wild West nowadays. We had a steward that didn't pass AELECT a few elections ago, so this suggests to me that being an admin on other wikis doesn't count for as much nowadays. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Years ago the question at RFA was basically "Can we trust you not to make a mess of things and not go rogue?" nowadays it's closer to "Have you demonstrated that you are familiar with the English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and culture, and can we trust that you'll act in accordance with them and their associated expectations?". The latter is much more specific (and arguably higher) bard, and one it is almost impossible to demonstrate other than through edits to en.wp Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Pretty fun fact; that is the only 2008 RfA I've seen that had over 200! discernable voices, which is interesting for a user with less than 100 edits then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – RFC Phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Inactivity

Unless I am misunderstanding, at least a couple entries at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive suggest inactivity for more than a year, with a few more on the horizon. Does anyone know if appropriate notification steps have happened?

Sorry if this is not the correct place to post, I was looking at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and got redirected here via the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The ones who last edited in August 2025 have been notified on their talk pages and will be desysopped at the beginning of the new month if they haven't returned by then—see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2026. User:Menchi, who last edited in April 2024, is not actually considered inactive under the letter of WP:INACTIVITY because he's made log entries (deletions) as recently as January of this year. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Clarification about threats of harm to admins

WP:911 says that "[t]hreats against others should be met with blocking". My question is, if an admin receives a plain and obvious threat to do harm to them (e.g. "I'll murder you"), would they be WP:INVOLVED or would they be able to issue the block themselves per the advice given at WP:911? I bring this up because admins wield a considerable amount of power, and are at higher risk of receiving treatment like this as a result of issuing a block against people who are particularly foul-mouthed. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED includes what is often referred to as the "any reasonable admin" standard, In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. If the situation is, or appears to be, urgent then responding to an obvious threat of harm towards another editor with a block is something that any reasonable editor would do. If it isn't urgent or isn't obvious then an involved admin should generally alert their colleagues, oversight and/or the WMF as appropriate rather than take action themselves (although obviously what is and isn't urgent or obvious is subjective). If an admin does take action themselves then they should flag that action for review in the appropriate location (which may or may not be a public venue, depending on the circumstances). Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought as much, but wanted to ask just in case (since I have been wrong about the meaning of INVOLVED in the past). What do you think about adding something like this in at WP:911?

−

*Threats <em>against others</em> should be met with blocking (generally including removal of talk page access) and possibly blocking email as well. Such threats should be blanked; consider applying [[Wikipedia:Revision deletion|revdel]] as well.

+

*Threats <em>against others</em> should be met with blocking (generally including removal of talk page access) and possibly blocking email as well. Such threats should be blanked; consider applying [[Wikipedia:Revision deletion|revdel]] as well. If an admin is the target of an ''obvious'' threat and the situation is (or appears to be) urgent, then the admin should generally feel free to take action themselves despite their [[Wikipedia:INVOLVED|involvement]]. If the threat is ''not obvious or urgent'', they should alert others as needed.

In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SFR, it's just one specific example of the any reasonable admin standard. We don't need to spell everything out. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but personally I think it also can't hurt to say something here to clarify, even if it seems obvious as part of the "any reasonable admin" standard. What might be obvious to one person might not be to others. In other words, I believe that it may be a good idea to add something regarding the aforementioned standard to the guidance to remove any potential ambiguities (which I think would be a net positive). Though I do admit I could just be failing to read between the lines. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 19:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem with stating the obvious is that people then think that items which are not listed are not permitted. Procedure here is to let everyone do what they think is right with the understanding that problems can be cleaned up later. Obviously a troll is going to be blocked regardless of what clever wording they come up with in an attempt to make an admin INVOLVED. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that clears things up nicely, thanks for clarifying everyone! In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 02:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)