This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi @Asilvering, thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Dave Kerpen back in September. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the policy on LLM-generated text when I first did it, and I understand now why it was declined.
I've rewritten the draft completely and gone back through each sentence against its source. Where I couldn't confirm something I removed or reworded it, and for sources behind paywalls I added short quotes to the citations so they can be checked. That said, I'm sure there may still be mistakes on my part, and I'd be very open to any feedback.
I've also tried to document my own understanding of notability on Draft talk:Dave Kerpen, though as I've disclosed, I'm Dave's wife, so I may not be the best judge. I'd be grateful if you could tell me whether I've understood it correctly. And if the current draft is ok for resubmission
Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for clarifying—I understand. I’ll leave DARBY (magazine) in the regular New Page Patrol queue. For future reference, could you let me know where would be the most appropriate place to ask for general feedback? I’m not asking for an individual patrol review; I’d just appreciate guidance on the proper venue. Thanks again! SOSA333 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SOSA333, belated welcome to wikipedia! (Actually, I also just sent you an email.) As an unrelated fyi, when you add a new section to a talk page, that goes at the bottom of the page, not the top. If you use the "new section" button it will do this automatically and you don't need to mess with the source editor on a long page like this one or WT:NPP.
For general feedback, there are a few ways to get it, but on-wiki these can often be pretty sleepy. You can try WP:TEA to get in contact with volunteers who are there to help newcomers, so they're going to be able and happy to help with basics. You can try the talk page of a related wikiproject. I've just added the relevant wikiprojects to the talk page of that article for you. Ideally, you'd go to WP:MAG for this article, but that wikiproject is really sleepy these days, and chances are no one will reply there. WP:PR is a more formal place you can go for reviews, and is especially helpful if you have some specific questions. But most established content writers plan to take their articles through review via WP:DYK, WP:GAN, and WP:FAC, which are structured processes with clear outcomes (your article is listed or it's failed), and these are the places where you can be most sure you'll get some kind of response. If you don't think your article stands a chance of becoming a DYK, a Good Article, or a Featured Article, though, you won't want to put it through those, and can feel kind of stuck!
So these days I really recommend trying to find active editors by other means. WP:DISCORD is very active, and you can ask for basic help there like you'd ask at WP:TEA. If you have a complicated or specific question, editors hanging out in the Discord server might know who to point you at. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the welcome and the heads-up. I didn’t know new sections went at the bottom, so I’ll use the “New section” button next time. I’ll check out the Teahouse and the relevant WikiProjects for feedback on DARBY (magazine), and leave it in the regular queue. I’ll look out for your email. SOSA333 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Asilvering. I hope you are well.
My block from editing Al Jazeera Media Network has ended, and I'm thinking of dipping my toes back into it. Would you mind taking a look over on User:غوّاص_العلم/AJ_Ownership_Work_Space, and letting me know what you think? If you think that it is reasonable for me to get back into this subject, and whether what I have going there is a decent way of starting that?
@غوّاص العلم, what kind of changes would you actually be proposing? The lead currently says Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) is a Qatari news media organization headquartered in Wadi Al Sail, Doha. It is a statutory private foundation for public benefit, and is primarily funded by the government of Qatar. That looks in keeping with the sources on your user subpage. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello.
As the subpage says, the changes would be about AJMN's current ownership situation. We are currently stating in the lead in WikiVoice that it is "a statutory private foundation for public benefit", when reliable sources rarely seem to call it that, at times noting that officially it is that, but frequently saying that it is owned by the state/government/royal family. The body should reflect that, and then the lead. Currently, the line in the body about government-ownership is based on sources from 2005 and 2008, and attempts to change it (and let alone the lead, which contradicts it) have faced immense opposition previously.
As I note in that subpage, there are many issues with the article, but currently I want to start from just the issue of AJMN's current ownership situation, see if we can find consensus on what the overall view of this matter is in RS, and how we reflect that.
No, I think that would be a very bad idea. Obviously, more commonly sources are going to say something that is less precise - it happens in basically every subject. Wikipedia isn't built on what the majority of sources say, it's built on what the best sources say. You've also conflated basically everything that says "Qatari owned" (true) and "state owned" (evidently not true). Here's one of your best sources, which is pretty clear: "Hugh Miles, the author of an authoritative book on Al Jazeera, told me that although the network is not a state broadcaster, it is "completely owned and controlled by the Qataris", and its Arabic channel is often used to "advance their foreign policy positions". Al Jazeera, he added, gave Qatar "enormous influence through the Arab spring"."In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
With respect, I've very much not conflated "everything that says" "Qatari owned" and "state owned". I've explicitly taken efforts to not conflate these. The sources I've included basically all clearly say "state-owned", "owned by the government", "owned by the emir", etc.. Dozens of them, with almost no exceptions.
In the source you chose, what do you think Miles means when he says "by the Qataris"? When he says, in the same sentence, "its Arabic channel is often used to "advance their foreign policy positions"", who is the "their" he is referring to? The obvious interpretation is that it is the people who decide the foreign policies of the state, i.e. the government/royals, whom dozens of other reliable sources say are the owners of the network.
At any rate, dozens of other sources I've included there clearly support the position that it is owned by the state/government/royal family, including academic works, some heavily-cited, published by the likes of Routledge (8), International Journal of Communication (15, by Zayani, whose 2005 book is currently used heavily in the article), Edinburgh University Press (22), International Communication Gazette (23), etc.. Please reconsider your "evidently not true". It seems like dozens of reliable sources say that it is true, and it seems challenging to scrape any reliable sources that say that it is not true. At the very least, the former should certainly not be treated like it isn't even a significant view, no?
The source I quoted explicitly says that it is not a state broadcaster. The source I spot-checked out of the ones you've just listed says born in 1996 with the sponsorship of the Qatari Emir, which is also congruent with "private foundation" and "funded by the government of Qatar", which is what our article currently says. I am not really clear on why you think that needs to be changed. But you don't need to explain it to me, as I have no editorial interest in the article. You'd have to explain it to the editors at that article. And I don't think that will go well. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
As per my previous reply, I think that the most obvious interpretation of what Miles was saying there is that it is completely owned and controlled by the government/royal family, although it is not an official state broadcaster.
The source you spot-checked, that says "born in 1996 with the sponsorship of the Qatari Emir", also clearly classifies AJ as a "state-owned outlet", alongside the BBC, Russia Today and Sputnik, and contrasting with privately held news outlets like Bloomberg, Fox, Sky News and CNBC. As is clearly seen in the table we're talking about. So... Please help me avoid feeling like I'm insane.
Given that the body of the article asserts in WikiVoice that it is government-owned, based on sources from 2005 and 2008, and the lead doesn't even mention this as a view that exists, I think that it is pretty clear why we should want to bring in a bunch of newer sources to have a better summary of all significant views, both in the body and in the lead.
Very well. If the above three points don't make you think that any change is appropriate, nor that my attempt might go well, I will take that into consideration, although I struggle to understand that right now. I will seek some advice elsewhere, as well.
We have described the facts neutrally, but we are not going to apply that label as you want. You tried and failed before, and this time will be no different.
You have already received feedback from Asilvering that it is a bad idea. If you try to push your agenda again and be disruptive, you will likely get yourself permanently blocked. B238 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for blocking this sockpuppet, @Asilvering. Is it possible for me to know what other accounts it's related to? I've recently been attacked by some temp accounts which are pretty clearly also sockpuppets ([1]; [2]), and this would be the third such case within one month. I'm trying not to let it get to me, but I would like to at least know more, if possible. At first I thought it might be people working for the government, especially since the first one seemed to be fishing for my identity, but now I'm not so sure anymore. It might also be coming from more than just one direction...
I won't reveal the main account of that one, sorry. But I know who it is, and I would be extremely surprised to find that person had any connection to your government. To that editor, if you're still watching here: harassing people while you're worried about your own safety is one of the most idiotic things you can do on Wikipedia. I'm hugely disappointed in you, and you are extremely lucky it was me who caught that and not someone else. Once CUs start publicly connecting accounts, you can't put that back into the box. Leave Ghawwas alone. You're not going to get the kid gloves again if you repeat it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thank you. I think I understand what you're talking about. If it's truly a safety thing, I'll be the last to keep pushing on that issue.
It would not surprise you to learn, however, that I do think that I have been subject to very unfair treatment on the particular issue of AJ, whereas on other Qatari subjects that I've worked on, people have been far more fair, even when they disagreed with me (putting aside the recent attack on general "edits that are critical of Qatar and/or its government"). On this subject in particular, editors and admins seemed to care quite little about what reliable sources actually say, and what different editors actually did, and care quite a lot about getting rid of me.
In that context, and I've debated a lot whether I should bring it up or not, I do also find it quite disappointing that, at the very least, you did not acknowledge here the matter of the source you "spot-checked". It might be a complete coincidence, but from my POV it feels like yet another example of the above, which I find quite discouraging.
I still don't know if I'm going to go back to this subject or not. It might simply not be worth it, if the system is built against it. I'm doing good work and learning a lot by improving many other aspects of Qatar (and other matters at times) on the encyclopedia. But there is a stubbornness in me which drives me not to accept this. So, I don't know.
In the AJ topic area, you're butting heads with editors who don't have much of an interest in Qatar specifically, so it's not surprising that you'd have a different experience in other topics. I'm not sure what you mean about the matter of the source you "spot-checked". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reply.
Regarding the first matter: yes, it is different indeed. I suppose that the question is what kind of different, and how acceptable it is, or should be.
And regarding the second matter:
I mean this reply. After you said that it is "evidently not true" that AJ is "state owned", I directed you to several of the sources listed in the table that I originally asked you to look at. You then said that you "spot-checked" one of those sources, using a quote from it and saying that it supports your position and the current text of the article in question.
Since you didn't say which of the sources it was, I looked for it in the different sources until I found it. I even made sure that that exact quote isn't also found in any of the other sources I listed, to make sure you meant that one. Then I went to my table, saw the quotes that clearly said it is state-owned, double-checked again in the source that they are indeed there, and told you about it. Then that sock came in to threaten me with being kicked out of the platform, and you blocked them, but did not respond to either myself or them.
I respect that you "have no editorial interest in the article", and that you were seemingly not interested in continuing the discussion beyond restating your general conclusion and recommendation. However, I think that any editor here should always be taking ownership for making this kind of mistake when it is pointed out to them, and that that is especially true when that editor is a senior admin, and even more so when that senior admin is basing their opinion that another editor should leave a subject alone at least in part on that mistake.
I hope that you find this criticism to be fair, and I apologize if my tone comes out unpleasant. It is not my intention, and is part of the reason why I hesitated in telling you about the issue.
How are new taxonomic revisions handled? Recently, there was a paper that used new molecular data to establish a more definitive phylogeny for whipspiders, and absorbed the family Charinidae into the family Charontidae (https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/73/3/495/7669116)
Does this eventually get updated in the Wikipedia taxobox system? Is there a standard for when it is considered accepted? Recently the body text of a new article of mine was changed from referencing Charontidae to Charinidae with the edit note saying that this doesn't match Wikipedia's taxonomic organization, which I guess implies that the taxobox organization drives the terminology we should use in articles.
Basically what I'm asking is how we know when to change Wikipedia's taxonomic organization, and how to deal with new results making phylogenetic changes. Let me know if there are guide pages I can read about this.
This will likely be relevant for the amblypygi soon, as the paper I mentioned hints at the possibility of several phylogenetic changes within families to come, and other researchers I know are working on similar things with whipspiders. --Jsamson2001 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Funny that I would be summoned into this discussion right as I was working on updating some sponge taxonomy...Basically what I'm asking is how we know when to change Wikipedia's taxonomic organization, and how to deal with new results making phylogenetic changes Unfortunately, there is no simple answer - every situation is different, and depending on what parts of the editing community you ask you will find a range of opinions. My personal opinion is that, per WP:V and WP:NOR, significant changes should not solely rely on a single recent publication, even if that recent publication is reliable, and we should wait until independent sources confirm/adopt the new status quo before we do the same. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS - our goal is to summarise the current consensus among experts in reliably published sources rather than to report new discoveries as they happen. There have been times where Wikipedians have swiftly created articles on new taxa only for the research underpinning them to be refuted by the wider scientific community, as in the case of the northern green anaconda, which was brought all the way to good article status before being reduced to synonymy and merged back into the green anaconda article. I have come across many similar cases reviewing new redirects in which a user has moved a page to a newly published name only to have to move it back a few months later because the new name was not accepted by other workers. taxobox organization drives the terminology we should use in articles This is something I've often seen, however, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that mandates it. Ideally, all Wikipedia articles on a topic should follow a consistent taxonomy with regards to article titles and taxoboxes, with alternative representations presented in the body of articles when relevant (and with due weight), but when new publications make massive changes it can be difficult to bring all relevant articles up to date. For this reason, some editors prefer to default to older and more stable taxonomies for consistency purposes, however, we should not maintain outdated information simply because it would be too much work to update everything else. If your changes are reverted and you disagree, starting a discussion with the reverting editor on the talk page/relevant WikiProject is almost always the best way to proceed. WikiProjects in particular are great: they allow you to both gauge the consensus among editors on a topic and recruit other editors to help work on bigger tasks.As to this specific situation with Charinidae being merged into Charontidae: this synonymy was published in 2024 (not especially recently) and in a high-quality journal, however, this synonymy has not been adopted by the World Arachnida Catalog. The last update to Charinidae on WAC was January 2024, just before de Miranda et al. was published, so this may simply be a matter of WAC being outdated rather than an outright lack of acceptance - this is not uncommon with the smaller databases due to the dearth of time and funding for more obscure taxa, and I would suggest sending the WAC folks an email to ask about this matter. A quick Google Scholar search seems to indicate that the synonymy has been accepted by other amblypygid workers who have published since 2024 so I think it is probably safe for Wikipedia to follow at this stage. Given that you faced opposition when you attempted to implement this previously, I would suggest starting a talk page discussion at either WikiProject Tree of Life or Wikiproject Arthropods to establish consensus for this change. Bringing all of the former Charinidae articles up to date may be a bit time consuming, but I'd be happy to assist if there is agreement among editors on this matter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 07:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the detailed reply. With regards to WAC, in my experience they're a little slow to add newly described amblypygid species, so maybe it's also just slow to be updated especially for major taxonomic changes. I'll probably email the WAC to confirm whether they intend to update to the new synonomy.
I will start a talk page discussion to ask whether we should update the articles now or wait. In terms of the actual work of updating the articles, the article for the family Charinidae and the genera therein are very simple. The amblypygid family articles are on my list to significantly improved when I'm more finished with my current expansion/overhaul of the main amblypygid article. The way it currently is, I think most of the rewriting necessary would be to create a new article for Charontidae, could probably just start as a stub like Charinidae, just with Charon and a reference to the study(s) confirming the new phylogeny, I think. Probably some additional work changing terminology on existing articles, but there really aren't probably too many of those to worry about and I think it would be simple.
The one thing I'm not really sure on would be how to update the taxobox system to account for the change. Is that something you could do if it was decided upon to adopt the 2024 phylogeny?
Another note to this is to reiterate that I wouldn't be surprised if in the not too distant future there were more taxonomic shakeups in the amblypygi. There were some more polyphylies uncovered in the 2024 paper that could change up some genera, and (outside of Wikipedia admissable evidence) an amblypygid scientist I know said they "wouldn't be surprised" if the Charontidae was resurrected again at some point. I'm still pretty new to editing so maybe the wikiproject discussion could go more into how to react to new changes. Charinidae/Charontidae at least for now are stub articles so swapping them around would be pretty easy. Maybe "Charontoidea" could become an article if things get really weird and cover any taxonomic drama.
You're very welcome! Yes, I can absolutely fix up the taxoboxes for you, though if you're interested in learning how to update them yourself you can check out the documentation for the automatic taxobox system - it's actually quite straightforward, I think it was the first non-article editing task I learned to do when I was a newcomer. Regarding possible future taxonomic changes, Wikipedia already accommodates this rather well. At the end of the day, the previous versions of each page are stored in their page history and can be restored if needed, so we're never forced to start over from scratch. As Charontidae is currently a redirect, it will need to be expanded into an article on the family, and then we have a few options for dealing with Charinidae: redirecting it (maintaining both articles as separate entities with their own page history, but incoming links to Charinidae will take readers to the Charontidae article), moving it (merging their page histories together while also redirecting incoming links from Charinidae to Charontidae), or leaving it as an article but updating it to reflect its status as an obsolete taxon (at least for now!). Each of these options have their advantages and disadvantages, but regardless of which one is ultimately implemented, we can always reverse course and return to the way things are now if necessary. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 05:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nice. I'll read up on the taxobox updates, I'll probably take a crack at doing it myself (if other editors are good to move to the new phylogeny now) since its a good thing to know how to do.
I have started a draft article for the Charontidae proper. Should be pretty simple to finish and I can work on expanding it with taxonomic history and biological characteristics soon. I'm currently drafting a discussion post and if there are no objections I should hopefully have a good enough starting version of Charontidae ready to slot in.
Any of those options for the old Charinidae sound like they would be great. If I find hard evidence of disagreement within the scientific community, having articles for both Charinidae and Charontidae could be a good way to include information about different theories, but for now I haven't seen scientific dissent.
I have posted a discussion in Wikiproject Arthropods for now. Looks like there isn't usually that much discussion in posts there, so I can repost in WikiProject Tree of Life later if no one bites soon and if you feel it necessary. Acanthophrynus747 (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have made some (successful I think) changes to the taxobox structure to place all charontid genera in charontidae, and submitted the draft of Charontidae to be made a full article. Am I correct that once charontidae becomes a full article the redirect page "charontidae" will be replaced with it? That's at least how I interpreted the note that appears when editing the Charontidae redirect, which says
"There is a draft of this article at Draft:Charontidae. If you are writing about the same topic, please do not create an article here. Instead, edit the draft and then publish it once it is ready."
Let me know what the most efficient way to swap the Charontidae draft article into that place. I will also make "Charinidae" a redirect to Charontidae when that page exists. Acanthophrynus747 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question from Dianaajmnz (19:48, 28 September 2026)
HeyAiden, I've been having some conflict with my wikipedia page can you help with it. I got my first article rejected because it said it used an AI structured model. I can attest it wasn't made with AI, how do I go about this. --Dianaajmnz (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dianaajmnz, I really don't recommend trying to hide LLM/AI use, which is pretty evident in that previous draft. I see that you've now rewritten it in your own words, which is good. But do the references still match what the sentences say? We want to be really sure that the information in our articles is verifiable and comes from reliable sources. So the next step for your draft is to make sure not just that everything in it is true (I expect this is easy for you, since you've declared a COI), but also that everything the article says can be verified by following the footnote. So for the sentence Las Casuelas Terraza first opened their door in 1979., I click on the footnote at the end of the sentence and find that the article, which was published in 2019, says On Feb. 5 – the same day the restaurant opened its doors four decades ago. Since that works out to 1979 I can say that the source verifies that part of the text. You need to do this for every sentence, since AI often makes things up or, if it can't find a source for something that is true, just invents a fake source. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
October 2026 Administrator Elections – Call for Candidates
Latest comment: 21 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Qualified editors are encouraged to find at least one experienced nominator. Self-nominations are also allowed. Please review instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
September 29–October 5: Nominations phase (we are here)
October 8–12: Discussion phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed. However, in practice, few candidates succeed without ~10K edits, some content creation, no recent behavioral issues, and a nominator.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 13 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Asilvering, nice to have you as my mentor. I was editing the topic Godadi earlier today. I have cited the excerpt of a paper presented at a symposium, available from the Digital Commons at University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The same page also has the full paper available for download. Is this acceptable as a citation? Thank you. --Staraeditor (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hm, this isn't great. What you're hoping to get as a source here is a full published paper - something with peer review and editors. But this is in more depth than many such papers, and it's certainly better than many other kinds of sources that would be more unreliable. Which is to say, I wouldn't lean on this for any surprising claims, and if another editor challenges it or it contradicts something you have in a source that appears to be more reliable, you may need to remove that information. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Not good enough to make any earth-shattering claims on its basis. I'll be mindful. Also I'll leave it there until I find something better or someone else finds it unacceptable. Thanks again. Staraeditor (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 15 September. Please help translate.
Starter Kit dashboard overview.
Highlights
Introducing the Wikipedia Starter Kit: The Foundation has launched a new Toolforge-hosted tool giving new and small language Wikipedia communities a guided pathway through essential onboarding tasks, activity indicators, and connections to the wider movement.
Apply for a scholarship to Wikimania 2027: Scholarship applications are now open to attend Wikimania 2027 in Santiago. To help with preparing submissions, orientation sessions in Spanish, Portuguese, and English will be held starting the week of October 5. The final deadline is October 31.
Reading Lists rolling out to all Wikipedias: Starting September 28, logged-in users on every Wikipedia will be able to save articles to a "read later" list using the bookmark icon, following successful rollouts on Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Czech, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
WikiCelebrate: WikiCelebrating Juan "BugWarp" Kulichevsky, who has contributed to Wikimedia projects since childhood and is passionate about sports photography and community building in Argentina and beyond.
The 2026 appointment cycle is open now through 31 October 2026 for the Ombuds Commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC). You can learn more about the committees, the roles, and how to apply on the Committee Appointments page on Meta-wiki.
Community Wishlist 2027: The Community Wishlist Process is now updated, taking into account the feedback received. Look out for the call for wish submissions towards the end of October.
Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2026: From Sep 18-20, Wikimedians, open-knowledge researchers, and free-culture advocates from Central and Eastern Europe gathered for the first time in Romania. Take a look at the novelties and history behind CEE Meeting.
Increasing account creation: To convert more casual users into logged-in daily users, the evergreen account creation prompt is released into Beta / TestFlight for iOS and Android. Also, a new post-edit notice designed to encourage Temporary Account holders to register for a permanent account will now be released to all wikis. The new notice has proven to increase permanent account creation from 1.94% to 3.66%.
VisualEditoris now the default at English Wikipedia: this wiki has now adopted VisualEditor as the default editor on both desktop and mobile web, following a sitewide discussion that found overwhelming consensus to make the change.
Retesting image carousel: The image carousel experiment will be retested using three new versions of the design, updated based on community feedback. The team will assess results and determine with communities whether or not to proceed with the feature.
Wikifunctions: Your code can now call back to the Wikidata fetch functions. Wikifunctions have deployed an initial capability by which a code Implementation (in JavaScript or Python) can call certain other Wikifunctions Functions, get back the result, and have it available for further processing.
Latest experiments: A current experiment is testing whether offering a "generic guidance" path for Article Guidance that does not depend on a Wikidata match would increase the chances of more article creation attempts. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News weeks 38 and 39 include a Reader Growth experiment testing whether showing only part of an article at first on mobile, with a “Read more” button to reveal the rest, encourages people to keep reading. See also the 56 community-submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Suggestions for Transliterated Search: If you regularly use two different writing systems (such as Hindi and Latin alphabet), sometimes you accidentally type with the wrong one and need to switch to the right keyboard. Now, this gadget will be able to suggest query based on what you typed.
LLM Paste Check rolling out to Wikipedia: A new Edit Check will prompt editors who paste text likely copied from an external AI chatbot to consider whether it aligns with movement AI-use policies and decide whether to keep or remove it. It goes live as a default-on feature at English Wikipedia on Sep 24 and at all Wikipedias on Oct 8.
Wikidata bulk downloads now free via Wikimedia Enterprise: New beta API endpoints let anyone download full Wikidata snapshots and pull hourly batch diffs at no cost, opening up bulk access that previously required a paid tier.
Accountability for Wikimedia production services: To ensure clear accountability for responding to incidents in Wikimedia production services, Wikimedia Foundation published the Service Catalog page. The page is the canonical source of service ownership for code deployed to the Wikimedia Foundation cluster. See also FAQ pages which contain more background details.
Datacenter switchover has been postponed:The equinox exercise revealed capacity issues, preventing the switch of all services to the other datacenter. The process has been paused, prioritizing investigating that issue, to ensure that we continue to be able to serve our users reliably. A new exercise will be scheduled. Meanwhile, all traffic and edits continue to work as usual.
Affiliates and grant funding: The conversations on the new proposed model, requirements and criteria continues until the end of next week with public calls on 1) Tuesday, September 29, 16:00-17:00 UTC on affiliate growth paths and Friday, October 2nd, 17:00-18:00 UTC on affiliate overlaps.
AI literacy program: A new regional initiative in ASEAN was launched to support training and conversations around AI literacy, accountability, and Indigenous self-determination.
Testing Google preferred sources: An experiment is proposed on English Wikipedia to run a temporary (2-week) notice asking readers who come from Google to set Wikipedia as a “preferred source” in Google. We would see if this causes people who use Google to visit Wikipedia more. If your language wiki is interested, please reach out on the project's talk page.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!
Latest comment: 19 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Word on the street has it you have developed a skill for determining AI agents and I think KnowledgeMaple(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog) is an agent. I came them across reviewing Draft:Tomas Gorny which had signs of LLM and noticed the pace and volume of their article creations. Their account was created back on September 25, 2025, their 3rd edit they cite WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and edited until early November, pretty much stopped in early November 2025 then started back a few days ago on September 23rd. Since the 23rd they have made 600 edits and created 17 articles.
An interesting one is Yoseph Zaltzman which they created on the 24th, has AI sign "The historian Joshua Tapper records that..." but the odd thing is yesterday they removed this statement. Note the edit summary. Baker's Woods uses "described as", Stephen Leacock Museum has "Parks Canada records that..." and there are a couple markdown hits in the filter log.
Looking at User talk:KnowledgeMaple/Archive 1, they were warned on their first day of editing about an WP:EL, to which their reply states "I’ll stick to neutral, authoritative sources...". GoldRomean left them an AI warning but no response (though they do respond to any others). Also see the discussion with GoldRomean regarding the draft for Ronen Plot, total AI responses so GR brings it up but KM does not address it. I had the same experience with warning a couple days ago (didn't see the archives beforehand) and my tp, no response regarding AI use. Also their statement at WP:Articles for deletion/DJ Danny D, their editing pace and overall edit summaries. I just moved one their articles to draft and left them a level 3 AI warning. However, given everything else it feels more agent than human and was not sure WP:AIN was the best place (and it is sooo busy). Of course, happy to do so which I guess I will need to either way. Sorry for the long post! S0091 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an autonomous agent. I manage this account myself, decide what I work on, and take responsibility for the edits made under it.
The workflow was mixed. I used AI tools for research, sourcing, citations, copyediting, and some drafting. I'm not denying that, and I understand the concerns about both the pace of my editing and some of the language in the articles.
I also should have responded when this was raised with me earlier. I didn't, and that was a mistake.
I'm writing the article prose myself, personally reviewing every edit before it is published, and focusing on citation and maintenance work.
No need to apologize asilvering! I did not like leaving this on your doorstep. For socks, we have process but not for this yet. I really appreciate you and @Blablubbs looking into it. Off to move articles to draft and another AIN report (that might be tomorrow). S0091 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will be sure to spread the love going forward lol. Part of it is gaining confidence that I what I think am seeing is at least within the ballpark to warrant scrutiny. S0091 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Who are/were the leaders of national organizations in your field? How about national award winners? That's a great place to start looking for article subjects you'd be well-suited to work on.
Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have been using wikipedia for years but this is my first time making an account. I caught a mistake on an article and wanted to fix it. Are there any particular formalities I should follow when considering and describing edits I may make in the future? Thank you in advance for your time. -DW --Das-Wildabeast (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked back at what I wrote in May 2025, "During mid-2019 I hit a low point of my life, lashed out at people for no good reason and behaved like a completely obnoxious jerk, and this was a prime consequence of it. I've since sorted myself out and changed my views on civility - in particular that admins must be held to a higher code of conduct and set a good example at all times" While I didn't directly apologise for my conduct, the self-awareness that I acted like a complete jerk out to have been an indication that I was out of line. I'm certain that is not the first time I have apologised for incidents back then and resolved to do better.
I am not commenting on Katie's remarks except to reiterate that I found them offensive and wrong, and took a week's break from Wikipedia to take my mind off it.
I'm not the one who brought it up, Ritchie - you did, in a decontextualized, obviously retaliatory vote on an RFA. An RFA, to be clear, of someone who was only peripherally involved in the events that led to you, not them, being one of the very few administrators on this project with an active editing restriction. If you've resolved to do better - if you indeed believe that admins must be held to a higher code of conduct and set a good example at all times - how can you possibly explain your actions? Why are you still, years later, asking for everyone else to centre your feelings? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Following an RfC, late signatures added to administrator recall petitions after 720 hours from opening are reverted or struck and do not count towards the threshold, even if the petition has not yet been formally closed.
The post-May 2026 administrator elections RfCs concluded with consensus for election monitors to curate blatantly inappropriate questions after posting, and to remove or merge true duplicates, clearly marking merged questions. Calls for candidates will include advisory guidance that users with less than one year’s experience or 5,000 edits generally lack a realistic chance of success.
Technical news
Interface administrators no longer need to specify the ResourceLoader option in the definitions for gadgets on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition as gadgets are always loaded through ResourceLoader. (T298199)
The list=abusefilters API module now supports formatversion=2 and includes breaking changes to its responses. In particular, the actions property is now a JSON array rather than a string, regardless of the format version. Maintainers of user scripts and other code using this module should check compatibility and update their code as needed. (T435828)
Doug Weller passed away on 30 September 2026. Doug Weller began editing Wikipedia in 2006 and became an administrator in 2008, making nearly 275,000 edits over two decades. He served on the Arbitration Committee from 2015 through 2018 and was also a longtime CheckUser and Oversighter.
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey asilvering, I would like to know if you can leave information holes in articles.
For example, if someone wants to make an edit about some animal, and its diet is unknown, should they replace/accompany that with the best theories made by experts?
If the diet of an animal is unknown, and all the sources simply say "diet is unknown", that's all we'd be able to say. But that would be quite odd! We go by whatever is said in reliable, published sources, so if those say "we don't know for sure what it eats, but the shape of its jaws suggest it eats tough vegetation", that's also what we say. If experts are really split on something and there is no scientific consensus, we tend to explain the debate. "Its diet is unknown for reasons. Scientist A has this theory. Scientist B has this other theory." That kind of thing. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, how are you doing?
I was just adding some additional citations to a page and found one in another language. I added it, but then thought about whether it was accepted practice to add a citation from another language to an English Wiki page if it already has at least one citation in English for the particular sentence.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The process for this year’s Community Wishlist has been published, incorporating community feedback. The wish submission process will end on November 8. This year, a working group (open for volunteering) that includes community members familiar with the technical aspect of our wikis alongside Wikimedia Foundation staff, will take care of the triage process. The triage is expected to be completed by late November. Votes for wishes will start in January.
Updates for editors
Editors using the visual editor will now see a warning when they paste text that is likely to have initially been copied from one of five external generative AI chatbots into Wikipedia. This feature is known as LLM Paste Check. It is a type of Edit Check that is community configurable. The check looks for markers in the copied HTML and is not using content watermark detection. Edits will also be tagged so that patrollers can review them more closely. The feature helps newcomers add content that respects Wikipedia’s policies and makes it easier for experienced editors to identify problematic edits. Communities with local policies about LLM usage can adjust the wording and policy that is linked. The team apologizes that this was rolled out without a delay for translations.
Editors can now easily access the web visual editor directly from the iOS and Android apps. When opening the editor, users will be given a choice between visual editing and source editing. If they choose visual editing, they will be sent to a mobile web window in their phone's browser. After completing their edit, a banner will give them the option to return to the app. This enables readers to make quick contributions while casually reading.
Users of the Wikipedia Android and iOS apps will now see a one-time account creation prompt after they have used the app for two consecutive weeks. This prompt explains the benefits of having an account. It is intended to help more casual readers become logged-in users who return to the apps regularly.
Editors on group1 wikis, including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource, will no longer see notifications on Recent Changes and Watchlist when a link to another language version of a page is added, removed, or changed in its Wikidata item. This change will begin on October 5 at 07:00 UTC as a two-week trial to reduce high-volume, low-value notifications and make important changes easier to identify. Editors who rely on these notifications can read more on the project page and share feedback or concerns on the talk page.
View all 36 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where mentors who removed themselves from the mentorship program could still have mentees assigned to them and receive questions, has now been fixed. Mentees will now be reassigned when a mentor leaves the program.
Updates for technical contributors
Wikimedia Brasil has published its Development Best Practices Framework (ABPD). It is a guide for staff, contractors and volunteers building technical tools and projects. It covers the project lifecycle, security, accessibility, personal data protection and responsible AI use, and explains how movement-wide guidelines were adapted to a local context. They encourage other affiliates to reuse it and adapt it. Read more in the Diff post.
A new, canonical base URL for Wikimedia APIs will soon be introduced. The new canonical route follows a {projectName}/api/ pattern and will act as an alternative path for current REST APIs (for example: {projectName}/w/rest.php/). Both versions will be callable for all existing APIs, but the new structure will be the preferred path for newly created API modules. This change will be non-breaking for most users. The existing pathways will remain available for all existing endpoint requests. However, some endpoints may return URLs following the new pattern in response bodies. Changes will be available on test wiki first, with the rollout expected to cover all wikis by the end of October.
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia and I want to get better at journalism and formal writing as well as I find it fun. Any tips for editing and writing articles or how to get better? thanks! --TheBestPerson777 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was just going to add pics and a question to a post for now. I got the question added but couldn't get the pictures added. I was wondering if anyone was experiencing the same problem with their sphinx. It seems to be an oroborous cat. --BabyBULLMama (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Could you please take a look at . If I'm right CU can't give any results based on just IP. But it seems like some sort of UPE war is going on here. This TA has been tagging many recently created articles (most of them seems like UPE) for AFD. Possible to fetch any information and identify to which gang does this belongs to? Thilsebatti (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well... it's not immediately obvious, and I'm reluctant to dig around on such a wide range. We've spotted Alakmarsaify and Deepcruze in the area but that really isn't saying much. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi asilvering,
I'm reaching out because you kindly helped with the Luke Leonard article many months ago, and I'd appreciate your guidance again.
My main concern is that the biography remains outdated and contains some material that could be better sourced, such as the production list. Would you agree that removing the production list entirely would be an improvement?
I've found published sources that could help bring the article up to date through 2026, including coverage in University News Network and a faculty profile at Seoul Institute of the Arts.
I'd be happy to share these sources and suggest corrections, but given my previously disclosed COI, I'd leave any rewriting to an experienced, independent editor.
Would you be willing to review the article or advise me on the best way to proceed? I'd really appreciate your help getting the biography into better shape.
Latest comment: 9 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Heyo! Quick question.
I've been looking at the page for the International Space Station, and noticed a few spelling errors. Because the page is listed as semi-protected, and I have yet to make 10 edits (Sorry Wikipedia!), I cant fix the mistake. Is there any way to make a suggested edit, like something that would require review and pass? I used the built in suggestion feature, but it does not allow you to make a proposed edit to the source code, so I couldn't point out the exact mistake. Am I doing it wrong? Is there a way to make a proposed edit to the source code itself?
Thanks! --SuperSillyGuy (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh whoops, this counted as my tenth edit. Darn! I still wont be able to fix it for another four days though, so my question still stands. Thanks again! SuperSillyGuy (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Asilvering, I am based in mainland China, where Wiki is blocked. Could you please renew my IPBE for English Wiki, which will expire next week? Thanks！ 호고호 (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Asilvering, after you locked talk page of superpower as well as main page, I'm unable to edit, contribute or respond on it since I don't have an account. It's been 3 months since there's a debate where contributor's geogsage & georgeho are pushing to downgrade superpower status of united states & china, & push EU, Russia, & India as superpower's, if you're following the page. I tried to counter their technical vandalism by presenting facts, figures, statistics, but they're using some dumb articles to claim. With you're placed restriction, I'm technically unable to contribute, so I want you to take appropriate action, whereby I can contribute again. ~2026-54454-80 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
October 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
Starting October 13, wikis can change the default pattern for auto-generated reference names in VisualEditor (currently <refname=":1"/>). They will be able to use human-readable, content-based reference names that are more helpful to contributors using the source editor (e.g. <refname="Miller2026-1"/>). VisualEditor reference name patterns can be defined using MediaWiki system messages, JSON, templates and modules (more information). Admins can enable these changes via community configuration. This is a community wish implemented by WMDE Technical Wishes.
Sub-referencing is a new MediaWiki feature that allows editors to reuse references with different details. It will be deployed to English Wikipedia on October 14 and to remaining Wikimedia Foundation wikis by end of October (likely October 21). The FAQ lists possible actions to take on your wiki to support the deployment. This is a long-standing community wish implemented by WMDE Technical Wishes.
Updates for editors
Moderator Tools will be removing the list view of the Watchlist and defaulting everyone to the changelog view. Previously, there were two versions of how the Watchlist is shown to mobile web users: the list view, where editors could see watched articles in a list format, and the changelog view, where editors could see changes to watched articles in a log format, controlled by a user's Advanced Mobile Control settings. This has created issues for code-base maintenance: two different displays means two sets of code to manage. By defaulting to the changelog view, we are simplifying the codebase and avoiding the likelihood of missing bugs.
The Wikipedia Android app is testing a way to listen to article introductions in the “For you” feed. A text-to-speech model reads the existing article text aloud without rewriting it or adding any content. The 30-day experiment will begin in the Wikipedia Beta app during the third week of September, then move to the regular Wikipedia Android app in October for a limited group of eligible users. A small portion of app users (those with English feeds and at least one topic interest) will have access to the feature. This experiment is part of broader efforts to give app readers options in how they consume content in order to deepen engagement and user retention. Learn more and share feedback.
CodeMirror syntax highlighting was enabled by default for all logged out and newly registered users on the English Wikipedia on September 14. With no signs of adverse effects, the same change is being proposed to be made globally across all wikis in a few weeks. If you have concerns or feedback, or if your wiki would like to opt out, please see the help page.
Last week, language link changes were removed from Recent Changes and Watchlist feeds on Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikiquote and Wiktionary. As no adverse effects have been observed, the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects plans to roll out this change globally to all Wikipedias. This is scheduled for October 13 at 07:00 UTC, after which editors will no longer see when a link to another language version of a page is added, removed, or changed in its Wikidata item. Editors who rely on these notifications can read more on the project page and share feedback or ask to opt out their wiki on the talk page.
View all 28 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where accidentally touching the graph while scrolling on the Pageviews tool on mobile could unintentionally zoom in has now been fixed. Click-and-drag zoom is now disabled on touch devices.
Updates for technical contributors
There are three major changes coming to dumps: the legacy content dumps deprecated in January 2026 will now be sunset, the replacement MediaWiki Content File Exports will be delayed to implement a “safety buffer”, and they are now also available as 7zip-compressed files. Users will need to switch the URL they download their dump from. For more information, timeline and migration instructions, see Legacy content dumps sunset.
The Wikimedia Foundation discovered unauthorized activity by OpenAI agents on Wikimedia projects, including edits to wikis, attempts to exploit a public note-taking tool, and heavy automated traffic. Read the blog post on Diff for more details about the activity and the Foundation’s response.
Meetings and events
Save the date for the next Wikimedia Hackathon! We’ll be meeting in lovely Tirana, Albania for the 2027 Wikimedia Hackathon from April 9–11, 2027. Scholarship and staff sponsorship applications are currently being accepted through Pretix and will close on October 30, 2026. General registration will open in January 2027.
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 25. Please help translate.
Screenshot of the Thanks feature.
Highlights
Community Wishlist: Community Wishlist is looking for volunteers to join their working group. You can find details on the goal of the group, roles and expectations, norms we'll follow, and how to sign up on this Meta-Wiki page.
Human knowledge at stake: Wikimedia Foundation makes the case for human knowledge at the UN General Assembly and how scrapers are straining our infrastructure and the larger human knowledge ecosystem online.
Joy of contributing:How a simple thanks fuelled one of our Wikimedians of the Year as they connect the community.
Wikimania scholarship deadline extended: The deadline for Wikimania 2027 scholarship applications has been extended through the end of day on November 4, 2026 (Anywhere on Earth). This is to compensate for a pause in the application window on October 15, 2026 from 1pm to 6pm UTC, to allow for an upgrade to the LimeSurvey platform.
OpenAI agent activities on Wikimedia projects: The Wikimedia Foundation have discovered some activity by “rogue” OpenAI agents on Wikimedia platforms. These unauthorized bot activities included edits to our wikis, some unsuccessful attempts to exploit a public note-taking tool we host, and heavy traffic.
Listening to Wikipedia: The Phase 1 experiment for Listening to Article intros within the Android app’s “For you” feed has been released into the Wikipedia Beta App. This experiment tests whether adding a listening format into the "For you" feed has the potential to deliver improvements in reader retention.
Bookmark button on mobile web: Logged-out Wikipedia users on mobile web will begin to see a bookmark button for saving articles to their reading lists instead of the current Watchstar button. When clicked, the bookmark button prompts users to log in or create an account to save an article for later, to encourage more readers to become account holders.
Abstract Wikipedia piloting showing articles to readers: Three initial pilot communities are currently working with the team to explore using abstract articles on their Wikipedias: Malayalam, Dagbani, and Igbo.
Simplifying account creation: An experiment has begun on Spanish, Arabic, English, and French Wikipedias to simplify the experience users encounter immediately after account creation. The test will explore whether removing friction from the current Welcome Survey helps new users understand what to do next more easily.
Latest experiments: An upcoming experiment is testing a personalised module, called 'Review Changes', for Home which aims to introduce newer editors to the concept of reviewing the edits that other users are making. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News weeks 40 and 41 include users of default skins on desktop and mobile web will now be informed if the search results displayed come from page redirects. See also the 20 community-submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Improving developers experience: Two new features has been shipped to improve developer experience: Spiderpig (deployment web interface) which allows developers to leave notes for each other about errors they see in the logs and Patchdemo, which now supports in-browser code editing, so developers can make quick changes without needing to push a new patch and recreate the demo.
Strengthening infrastructure: To reduce the workload from non-pageview requests, the overall number of database queries per logged-out pageview has been reduced by 52%, from a baseline of 23 queries/pageview in August, to 11 queries/pageview today. Read more.
Increasing test reliability: To reduce friction in post-merge validation and ultimately improve confidence in release decisions: Catalyst was proven to be a much more reliable environment to run daily Selenium tests (95.7% eventually green) compared with the beta cluster (79.1% over the same 10 suites). This gives confidence to automatically catch issues before they reach production.
Transparency Report: The latest Transparency Report has been published. Out of 953 requests for content alteration and takedown, only 2 requests were granted. The Foundation continues to prioritize the public interest and is guided by the content moderation policies the volunteer community has shaped over the past 25 years.
Affiliations Committee: Wikimedia Affiliations Committee Has New Officers and Advisors. Read also the latest issue of the AffCom News to learn more about their work.
Board of Trustees Elections Process: The Board has reviewed the feedback received since July on its elections process proposal, and thanks everyone who shared input on Wiki, in person, or directly with Trustees. Based on that feedback, the Governance Committee has moved away from the eligibility criteria approach and developed two new options for the 2027 selection process and beyond. We'd like your feedback again before deciding. Please read the proposal and share your feedback on the Meta-Wiki talk page by October 27.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!
Latest comment: 19 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have been working on cleaning up the AlphaChip article via talk page edit requests. I've reached a bit of an impasse with LouScheffer, most recently over the questions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as well as over whether the article should include content that can only be sourced to a paper by Markov that has received an expression of concern from the publisher. Lou and I both agree that the discussion would benefit from intervention by a neutral editor. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:AlphaChip and stepping in? LovinLifer (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @LovinLifer, sorry, as you may have gathered from how long it took me to get back to you, I have a lot on my wiki-plate right now. But also, I don't think it would be good for me to step in as a neutral editor on the content, since I think I know too much about the dispute. My suggestion would be to try asking at WP:3O. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - thanks for reviewing my submission. The original draft was written with LLM assistance, but it has been rewritten and strengthened, Thanks for the feedback, appreciate your efforts. Bx10463 (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, the article was rewritten manually. I'm not sure what a parameter in a submission template is - could you kindly let me know so it can be fixed? Thanks Bx10463 (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. You approved my IPBE request through November 2 and said to contact you if my employer was still using ZScaler within a couple weeks of expiry. They are, so I am requesting an extension to my exemption. Thank you for your assistance! —Jkudlick⚓(talk)23:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello how are you? Are you my mentor that can help me with my article for James Beere? I had disclosed that we have known each other and was told that if I disclosed that, the article could still get approved. --Timmers510 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for responding! Yes, I'll wait to see what the reviewers say before reaching out. I appreciate you following up and supporting! Timmers510 (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
To measure the impact of incorporating some community-requested features on logged-out reader retention, a test for Image Carousel will be pushed to logged-out readers. With the Image Carousel feature, readers browse community-uploaded images, selected by editors as relevant to specific articles. The test starts on November 20.
An experimental notice will be pushed to 0.5% of logged-out mobile readers who come to English Wikipedia from Google, asking them to add Wikipedia as a Google Preferred Source. The test is to see if this notice increases reader retention and encourages people who use Google Search to visit Wikipedia more often. It will run from October 15–29 and will be assessed for its impact on retention and referrals.
View all 26 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where Quarry returned an “Access denied” error when users tried to run SQL queries, preventing queries from running normally, has now been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
Due to a long-standing bug, applications that use the OAuth 2 client credentials flow to act on their owners’ behalf are treated as if they are logged out. This will be fixed for new applications registered on or after Monday, October 19. Some affected applications need to re-register.
A proposal to hold the Wikimedia Hackathon every three years, with regional hackathons in between, has been shared. It explores making the event more accessible to technical communities in different regions. Share your feedback on the proposal’s talk page before November 6.
Latest comment: 13 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
I'm having trouble with my article specific sandbox, I don't know If I'm not looking in the correct place but I have been working through sources and writing in a different platform and now that I'm deeper into the assignment I cannot seem to figure out the sandbox drafts.
