Wikipedia talk:Administrators

External videos
Wheel warring

Australia flag

Moved to Talk:Anthony Albanese § Australia flag

Revive page Govind_Dholakia with help of admin

Dear Respective Admin of wikipedia. Namaste.. We want to revive page of Govind Dholakia we came to know that one who is administrator only can revive or recreate this please help us on same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Brakshit23, if you think the person is notable, you should start creating the article in the draft namespace or in your sandbox and then submit it for the AFC review. If the review passes, contact the admin who protected mainspace title to remove the protection.

You should also read what reliable sources are?, biographies of living persons and notability requirements for biographies. --Baggaet (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank You Baggaet for the prompt attention and suggestion for the asked query. Certainly we are working on it. Also we will read suggested topics by you to broaden up our understanding towards wikipedia content. Thank You So much will surely ask for your help if needed Brakshit23 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask one question here, who is “we”? Canterbury Tail talk 10:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Me and my GF usually do update and learning wikipedia things together. That's why we Brakshit23 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brakshit23 then you should have separate accounts, please. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay Doug Weller.. Noted

Thanks Brakshit23 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy on seperate accounts? Because wouldn't tha clash with use of IP accoiunts, Personally I think if they wantto be responsible for each other's actions AND they are editing- then all power to them Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

About WP:INACTIVE

Why is I JethroBT not on WP:INACTIVE? They have made no edits since June 7, 2021, are on WP:LOA/I, and have no log entries since the same day. JJMC89bot never seems to have put them on the list. Is this a bug, or is there a reason for this that I don't know about? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's ping the bot operator to let them know: JJMC89. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That account has a activity from June 2021, so they will appear in July 2022, the report gets run at the beginning of the month; while there is no required day for this to happen - in practice we only process these removals once a month so there can be a lag of up to 1month-1day. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's because I JethroBT has thanked several users in the last year, which technically counts as a logged action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh, WP:THANKS actions are excluded from the results when "All public logs" is selected. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That UI doesn't include all logs at once by design, nonetheless the log exists so it can be presumed that this contributor is not 100% inactive. There has never been very good agreement on what defines an "administrative action"; the new edit requirements policy starting next year will start encompassing admins that only do something like "thank" while otherwise inactive. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Some admins like Nev1 stopped editing but he does admin actions as recent as 4 days ago... Thingofme (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux can you point me to the 'new edit requirements policy". Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators#Criteria shows the criteria and the dates that they will be effective from. There's a link to the relevant RfC at the top of the same page too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How will the new edit requirement policy work? Will we start warning/giving notice from December 1, 2022 or wait until January 1, 2023? Thingofme (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The new requirements do not come in to force until January, and the new requirements require the appropriate notices to be given, so the first warnings will be sent out in January, the second set of mandatory warnings to be sent out in March, and the first admins desysopped for inactivity under the new criteria will be desysopped in April 2023. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you tell if someone is an Admin?

How do you? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: On a user's contributions page, you can click "User rights" at the bottom. Admins will have "administrator". Anarchyte (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wakelamp, you can also install the markAdmins user script. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also enabling Preferences>Gadgets>NavPopups will let you hover over a username and see how many edits they've made, how long they've been editing, and what userrights they have. Very handy tool. valereee (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia as an Official Source - Generally Prohibited by All Reputable Academic and Legal Institutions (Can We Correct the Problem)?

Dear Administrator and Attn: @Edwardx,

I would like to cite @Edwardx page on Altice (company) in a brief I am filing with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a user, I have a few concerns about Wikipedia more generally, which I will discuss at a later date, but as a reliable source for academic and legal purposes, it is difficult to use because it is not considered "officially-accepted" by any industry as credible. Its lack of credibility is due to the fact that it is unclear who wrote it and the rules of citations require the author's last name and (at least) his/her first and middle initial in order for the source to be reputable. Also there is no screening process to determine and validate a user's credentials as an expert, an enthusiast, or bias party as to the subject matter.

Of primary concern, I am only focused on obtainingEdwardx's full name so that he does not miss out on the opportunity to be credited for his work in such a high-level legal filing. Because of Wikipedia's present rules, I am not (would not and cannot) demand or require Edwardx to provide his name. It is only a gentle request which I believe to be in his best interest. If he is interested in being cited or if an administrator is interested in connecting me with the proper persons to disucuss how I can help make Wikipedia a more credible online source with industry experts, please contact me at electattorneys@gmail.com.

For your information, as to the specific user Edwardx, his name will appear in the brief which will initially be filed under seal, but could become public information at a later date. ~~ ChristaJwl (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply ask at User talk:Edwardx? Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl, Edwardx should have been only summarizing what is in the citations. Anyone using Wikipedia for research should regard an article as simply a collection of curated links to reliable sources which have discussed the subject, with prose that summarizes what those sources are saying. Which is why no one should cite to Wikipedia but instead go read the actual sources and cite to them. valereee (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I am not sure that is effective because sometimes the sources are incorrectly summarized and it then actually makes more work for the researcher. Is it a liability issue? Because I do not understand the point of wikipedia if all these authors are doing all of this compilation research and none of them are going to be credited for their efforts. Essentially, you just want me to follow in their footsteps and take all the credit for myself?~~ ChristaJwl (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl, if the sources are incorrectly summarized, then certainly you don't want to cite to an incorrect summarization. Instead summarize the source correctly when you cite it. And ideally, correct the summarization within Wikipedia or tag it as unverifiable. valereee (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, anyone using Wikipedia to research a subject is going to have to do some more work. Wikipedia is edited (written) by anonymous people signing in from all over the world, some of whom have extremely shaky research/analysis skills or even ill-intentioned non-neutral points of view. Never cite directly to Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia does not cite to other Wikipedia articles. valereee (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

According to this xtools report, Edwardx is not the main contributor to that article. An IP editor contributed more than Edwardx, and several other editors made significant contributions. Perhaps you can cite that report, ChristaJwl. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ChristaJwl, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, ChristaJwl. Cannot see any reason why I should wish to avail myself of an "opportunity" to have my name included in any US legal case. I am British, based in London, and it is many years since I lived in the US. Incidentally, I did start the Altice article, but have only contributed 11% of its content, so the whole idea seems moot. Edwardx (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wise choice. @Edwardx I agree with your decision This seems may be a clear attempt to de-anonymise, I can find no mention of electattorneys@gmail.com, or electattorneys.com on the web. Obviously pay back for 1776 Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source for academic and legal publications, and I would strongly discourage you from using it in any legal filing. This is not a problem to be corrected—to treat it as such would misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. You should use Wikipedia as a starting point for informal research into a topic, but if you are looking to do any serious academic or legal research, you must use sources that have a stronger reputation for peer review and fact-checking. In addition to the links my fellow editors have provided above, I would also point you to Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Mz7 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria

At Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria, the second criterion is inconsistent with the second criterion at Wikipedia:Administrators § Procedural removal for inactive administrators. I'm guessing this is a remnant from copying and pasting, but thought I would confirm that I didn't miss something from the corresponding request for comments? isaacl (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are they inconsistent?

• Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators - less than 100 edits (deleted or otherwise) or log actions for 5 years
• Wikipedia:Administrators - Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60 month period

Sure, the wording is slightly different, but 5 years = 60 months. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Logged actions was not in the RfC. The only threshold included was 100 edits over a 60 month period. The earlier comment from Xaosflux on this talk page aligns with the RfC, where only edits are considered part of the threshold. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I did miss something (and a fairly obvious something at that). Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Special Circumstances Blocks

ArbCom gave an announcement today which updates/clarifies some previous announcements linked to in the special situations section of this policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

test

test — xaosflux ^Talk 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

test2

test2 — xaosflux ^Talk 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)