Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible.

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections: Voter log; Contact the coordinators; Discuss the elections; Results

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

And so on and so forth...

RAN

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

CCI and such

I don't think you're wrong; obviously CCI is a laborious and painful system. It's gotten slightly less sluggish over the last few years, but the difficult and large investigations can take over a decade to complete. I'm interested to hear how you think it can be fixed up; it's in that paradox of "work that needs to be done, but there's not a lot of good ways to get it done".

Also, I don't think "at his (rational) unwillingness to help use small fish to cut large trees" is totally accurate to what's going on here; It kind of makes it sound like PB has brushed off concerns about the CCI, but I haven't really seen him do that. Its PB's responses in reply to people investigating individual articles, outside of work on the CCI, that have been criticized. PB's discussion about the CCI with me was measured and insightful; it seems like if there was more follow-up, something productive could be done? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moneytrees — (1) First off, CCI needs to use random sampling to identify problem articles rather than attempting to verify every single edit. (2) There needs to be a statute of limitations on old editing, such as five years. Things get morphed over time and a close paraphrase fifteen years ago is apt not even to remotely resemble its original form now. (3) It's too easy to open a case on an old account, currently, as I understand it, three instances of bad editing opens a case — which for someone with 150,000 edits would be 0.002% of edits, I believe. Maybe three bad edits of the last 1,000 would be reasonable, but the current standard is ludicrous. (4) There should be no expectation made of the subject "helping to fix" the "problem" — which was what wiped out Richard Norton. If there's a problem with editing, it needs to be isolated, and if it is chronic and ongoing, the editor needs to be made to walk the plank. But forcing an editor with 100K edits to find 17 pieces of dried corn in a bag of 100,000 dried peas using a pair of tweezers — the current CCI system — before engaging in further editing has the same practical effect as a indefinite ban. (5) This might be a case where use of computer tools to find copyvio are appropriate.

I don't know the specifics of the Southwood situation, but I do know what is fundamentally wrong with CCI and I do know that Norton was sacrificed on the pyre because the CCI folks were frustrated. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In ongoing discussion in the "News from Arbcom" thread at Wikipediocracy, it has also come up that I missed one essential reform in the above list: (6) A normal and regular process to terminate a case "early" if the magnitude of problematic edits found does not make the time and effort into finding them worthwhile on a simple cost–benefit basis. I also note with gallows hilarity that your grim diagnosis of "over a decade" for cases of long-term editors is on-target, as the now-anonymized Richard Norton case remains open with little indication it will ever be concluded after more than 14 years. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concrete suggestions! A lot of them aren't too far off from thoughts me and other CCI editors have had over the years. To respond;

1; The purpose of CCI is to clean articles of copyright issues as thoroughly as possible, which is going to require almost all "major" edits be looked at. A random sample could very much miss out on major issues in listed articles, or otherwise waste time... but, I do think it could have a useful application. What I've thought of doing is having an "assessment" section on each CCI, which is to be filled out during the preliminary stages of an investigation. The assessment can focus on identifying an editor's "M.O." a random selection of edits made over the years by the CCI's subject; these edits would then be evaluated and notes on the editing style would be taken, e.g. their citation style and the sources they copied from, how they copied from sources (close paraphrasing vs unedited pastes), what their non problematic edits look like, etc. From there, a concrete strategy can be taken in how to assess the CCI; certain time periods/articles can be focused on and stuff we know is unlikely to be problematic can be removed. Edits at CCIs are listed from largest to smallest; the assessment could determine if going by years or another format is better. And of course the assessment format could be used on older cases, and we can see if/what can be done for them...

There might also be a way to update the "autoculling" process to accommodate this; when a CCI is first opened, a script is run to remove obviously unproblematic stuff (templates, technical stuff, refs or whatever). For example, a frequent issue is editors pasting in copyrighted plot summaries, but otherwise not really having other problematic edits. We could have an autocull the other edits and then focus on the remaining plot summary ones. Ideally, this would speed up the CCI process to a few months to two or three years at the very largest. It would still take some time, but it'd be massively more efficient and less taxing on everyone involved.

2; Unfortunately, old edits tend to stick around for a while before being rewritten; on larger, more popular articles/topics, they usually go away quicker, but on more niche stuff-- and this is Wikipedia, so there is a lot of niche stuff-- edits tend to stay completely untouched, indefinitely... and it can still be a problem, as we've had copyright holders complain about stuff added decades ago, which happened at the Hauganm a few years ago. Otherwise, we typically discard/ignore edits that aren't in articles anymore, though; the Who Wrote That? extension is super useful for that.

3; The current standard is more around four to six examples before a case is opened; it scales higher for people with larger editing histories. But it's also that people with very high edit counts don't always have many content edits, instead just making semi-automated gnoming/technical edits and the like, which are never listed at CCI. I've seen cases where someone with a few thousand edits has much more content to look over than someone with over 100K; so there's not a one-shoe-fits-all approach to opening a case.

4; Editors aren't really made to do this anymore; their assistance is helpful, of course, but making it a binding thing doesn't necessarily make good results for anyone. I've criticized the practice at User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks. If someone's advocating that, I don't think it's such a good idea, sorry.

5; This is something I've always wanted that's been worked on over the last few years, although getting the WMF to help out with volunteers isn't always straightforward. For the last decade, we've mostly used Copypatrol to look at new edits; the Turnitin extension on there is super useful. It can read sources better than Earwig can, and can access paywalled texts and some non-internet books-- actually, Earwig does have access to Turnitin, but it's never worked for me. Apparently the account used to generate the Turnitin reports for Earwig don't work anymore, although that's being worked on last I knew? If we could batch run Earwig with Turnitin, that would definitely go far in making CCI more efficient. Ditto if that could be made into a semi-automated process. That combined with the autoculling process could probably work wonders for CCI.

6; We've closed cases as no longer needed without "finishing" them before, although a practice for doing so isn't codified. I think that would make sense to do; maybe it can be worked into the assessment I noted above, where a case can be closed or significantly narrowed in scope if need be.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I think these were some valuable critiques and I've had a lot of these ideas for a while, and this was a good opportunity to get them out there-- so thanks! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

	Teahouse Barnstar
	For going above and beyond with your help at the Teahouse. Trey Wainman (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for the response you left in my talk page and at the teahouse. It was reassuring and helpful. Also, it was nice to see that you left some red links for my article, so I didn't need to go add them to the relevant pages. I was a little surprised to see everything linked already.
Many Thanks, - Trey Wainman (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Wainman - There's a real learning curve at WP and it can sometimes seem like a battle royale or a mosh pit, where you end up taking hits and needing to keep an eye over your shoulder simultaneously. Fortunately this atmosphere calms down over time as a person establishes themselves, learns the rules of the jungle a little bit, and gains a reputation as a serious-minded contributor. One thing for sure though is that the Articles for Creation process is broken and one of the biggest things that needs to be imparted on serious-minded new people who are getting bashed from all sides is that it is completely optional and is actually something to be avoided. Just act like an experienced editor, work around it rather than through it, and add good content without adding bad content, and things will work out in the end. Just make everything is documented with a published source of presumed accuracy and everything will turn out swell. Keep me on speed-dial in case you have more problems and happy editing! —tim ////// Carrite (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nothing is lost forever at WP. Even if you wind up having something deleted, it is still saved and recoverable through administrators. So just keep calm if anything gets deleted away and see if the issues involved can be worked out. t

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360

Online events:

New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A
Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025

Announcements from other communities

Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026.

Tip of the month:

Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies.

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
Follow us on social media:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol

New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.

The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Interested in participating? Sign up here.

You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Carrite. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Carrite 🎉

Hey @Carrite. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Wikipedia's 25th anniversary in Portland!

Hey Carrite,

You're invited to the celebration of Wikipedia's 25th anniversary in Portland, Oregon! Join us at the Rose City Book Pub at 2:00 PM on Sunday, January 18.

Please RSVP at the link above, even if you might be interested, so we can let the Pub know how many people to expect. Hope to see you there!

(To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

Fathoms Below

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

News and notes: Wikipedia's 25th anniversary is here!
Where does the time go?

Special report: Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call
The internet is booming. We are not.

Serendipity: The WMF wants to buy you books!
Really! A major triumph.

WikiProject report: Time for a health check: the Vital Signs 2026 campaign
The campaign to get all of our top-importance medical articles up to B-class or above.