Dr vulpes

 About me Talk to me To do list My work List of my mistakes

Admins, if I've done an admin action that you disagree with feel free to make any adjustment to it that you feel is appropriate.

Your nomination of Christine Morrissey is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Christine Morrissey is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the block

@Dr vulpes

Thank you for the block. It's interesting that you gave me a 3 month vacation, as opposed to a well deserved beach vacation for years.

To be clear: my contributions focused on removing WP:PROMO, link farms, and unverified WP:BLP claims—all manually researched and policy-compliant. If your administrative priority is to protect corporate promotional bloat while penalizing the tools used for cleanup, you are misapplying the project’s goals. Did you even check before clicking on "clean up"?

I will respect the restriction and leave the articles in their current state. If you believe the encyclopedia is better served by the material I removed, feel free to revert the edits.

If you can't undo my edits, let me do that.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes

You're the one applying a block and asking other editors not to unblock. The rant is not from my end. I'm not going to ask an RfC for something as ridiculous as this - admins probably have better places to invest their time on. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

AINB archiving

Hi, just re closing and archiving at WP:AINB, some of the discussions you closed and archived involved editors that had only been warned or temp blocked, imo it's usually good for these to stay open to check up on later and see if they're still using LLMs/do further clean-up. It's only really the unproductive threads or ones where an editor's been blocked and clean-up has been comprehensively completed that need closing/archiving. Like AINB's primarily for clean-up, the ability to place sanctions was just tacked on to save time from ANI. (also idk if you're using AI detectors? but see WP:GPTZERO, tbh it's usually best to avoid them and look for a combination of AISIGNS and WP:V failures, but YMMV) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For sure @Kowal2701 with over a 100 open issues I was just trying to clear up the backlog. I can leave the threads like that there longer if you like. Maybe we should make a change like a page for incidents like ANI, or adopt something like CTOP with a log of warned users. Partial blocks are only used to prevent reoccurring behavioral problems as per WP:NOPUNISH. Hence why if someone has stopped editing or stopped using AI then there isn't a block issued. If they are still using AI then they're only blocked from mainspace, they can still make requests for edits and use AFC for new articles. I've been working on creating some AI detection and classification models that I run locally which have been tuned for Wikipedia articles. I note when I've used them to be transparent (same with AI copyediting) but they are never the only source or reason for any sanction or warning. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. Yeah it is very long. Tbh I expect we’re at the stage where lots of reports are going to get archived without being finished, and the purpose of AINB rn is document as much as possible so it can be cleaned up at a later date when we’re better equipped. But idk. I’ve changed the archiving to 60 days instead of 90, hopefully that’s an improvement Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think also when something is resolved or cleaned up then it's fairly safe to move to the archive. Maybe we should set up a system to tag and track the archiving so we can monitor changes over time. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It would be great to have a log of editors that have been warned with a counter for when their last edit was, and they can be removed when it’s deemed they’ve stopped using LLMs. There’s Category:WikiProject AI Cleanup open cases for tracking clean-up subpages (incl. ones archived), but they don’t always get made. I should really learn how to use the script that creates them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've sometimes been cleaning up after editors long after their AINB thread was archived, see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard/2025-11-18 Gyða1981. But that's mostly where the editor isn't a concern anymore. For example, Gyða1981 quit editing, declined to help with the cleanup and said she wouldn't be editing anymore. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

First off @Gurkubondinn this is amazing. I need to make a bot to automate this! Dr vulpes (Talk) 14:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

User:DVRTed/AINB-helper is the script, would be great if it’s possible to automate it, though idk how the bot would determine when LLM usage began Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Citation count

(Not a critical of very important comment/question.) I am not exactly sure what you were referring to at AfD Alireza Mashaghi, but citations is 1a of NPROF and probably the most common pass. Of course there are other ways of passing, the most common being Fellow elections. Without knowing your field & numbers whether you would pass is of course unknowable. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I find that at AfD people will invoke WP:NPROF then try to die on the hill of "but they have XYZ citations!". Hence my comment about citation counts, yes they are important but as you correctly pointed out in the context of their field they weren't as impressive as some of the other editors were claiming it to be. It is a bit of a pet peeve of mine to see a bunch of new accounts try to mislead/misunderstand WP:NPROF at AfD to try and get everyone to vote Keep on a clearly non-notable academic. Dr vulpes (Talk) 14:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I share that peeve. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sahil Bloom Speedy Delete???

Hi - Please elaborate on why you felt like a speedy deletion was necessary on the Sahil Bloom page? He is a prominent NYT best selling author and many of the sources listed are domains that are directly listed on WP:RSP - Perhaps it was a mistake? JazzyOxygen (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@JazzyOxygen see WP:NBOOK, WP:A7, and WP:G15. They fail notability now but maybe in the future they will pass the requirements under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and would like you to consider reinstating that article and putting a maintenance templates across the top to allow others to improve it.

For reference there are many notable sources on him that are approved sources in the list WP:RSP such as WP:PEOPLEMAG, WP:RSPGQ, and The Globe and Mail. Not to mention many other notable publications from well respected publications:

https://people.com/sahil-bloom-offers-a-new-way-to-think-about-your-life-in-new-book-exclusive-8678321

https://www.gq.com/story/real-life-diet-sahil-bloom

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/management/article-you-need-five-sources-of-wealth-not-just-money-for-a-successful-career/

https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/how-sahil-bloom-built-a-newsletter-that-makes-70000-a/467228

https://www.today.com/video/sahil-bloom-shares-advice-about-making-major-career-change-241817669949

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/28/he-had-everything-he-wanted-by-30-but-still-felt-miserable-his-life-changed-when-he-started-focusing-on-5-things.html JazzyOxygen (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you please respond to this? JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@JazzyOxygen, Those are great sources but they aren't passing WP:AUTHOR. The book they authored doesn't pass WP:NBOOK either. Sorry this is a case where they may be notable later but as it stands they are not. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but the standard is not whether someone may become notable “later,” but whether there is already significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. In this case, there are multiple examples from established publications that are explicitly recognized and routinely accepted within Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing framework, including People, GQ, CNBC, Today, Entrepreneur, and The Globe and Mail.

Additionally, the conclusion that the subject “doesn’t pass” appears to be asserted without any explanation of which specific criteria are allegedly unmet. For example, the guideline references books that have received significant coverage, substantial sales success, or notable cultural impact. A multi-time New York Times bestselling book with widespread mainstream coverage would appear to reasonably satisfy at least portions of that framework.

The requirement is significant independent coverage, not literary awards or academic treatment. The sources provided are not trivial mentions or directory listings; they are substantive pieces, interviews, and feature coverage from national well-known publications.

At minimum, this seems far more appropriate for AfD discussion or maintenance tagging rather than speedy deletion under A7/G15. Speedy deletion is intended for cases with no credible assertion of significance, and the article clearly asserted significance.

I would respectfully ask that the article be restored to draft or mainspace with maintenance templates if needed, so notability can be evaluated through normal editorial process rather than a subjective interpretation of whether the subject is “notable enough yet.” JazzyOxygen (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

No @JazzyOxygen, you've already asked at WP:REFUND and two admins have now told you they aren't doing it. I also told you here and at WP:REFUND why they didn't pass. When I say they may be notable later that was not a reason for the deletion, as of right now they fail at being notable. Me saying that they could be notable later on was me being kind and telling you that the subject of the article has potential to achieve notability. You've been begging and pestering me for a week about this and it will not get me to change my mind. Maybe you can convince another admin to do it and that's fine. At the top of my talk page it informs any other admin that they can reverse any action I take for any reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As an aside, don't come here and try to wikilawyer me with some AI slop, at best it's disrespectful, competence is required on this project. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to say you were doing the same thing to me, but you beat me to it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ JazzyOxygen (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tatar Roma

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tatar Roma. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zolgoyo (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Closure at ANI

Your closure of the section says that "EEng has set up archiving" but this is not true: EEng archived everything that was on his talk-page, but has not set up (automated) archiving. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine it's their talk page and they can archive it as they see fit. There is already an archiving template there and it's their responsibility to keep their talk page somewhat clean and organized. I have been known to let my own talk page get a little long ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ so I get it. The request was for mandatory archiving not automatic archiving. Should they set up automatic archiving? Yeah if I were them I would, if they mess up again there will be grounds for sanctions. I view it like setting up a bill for autopay it's something you should do to prevent the power from getting turned off at your house. I won't make EEng set up automatic archiving because that wasn't what was requested and they can take responsibility for their own userspace, but I also won't have a lot of sympathy if they mess up and we have the deal with this again. If for some reason their talk page starts to get messy I'll try to drop them a reminder since I closed the ANI thread about it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The archiving template was there before the discussion began, and it is not an automatic archiving template. The thing people are asking for in the ANI thread is different from the thing that has happened, and different from the thing that you say has happened in your close. Personally I don't feel strongly about what the correct outcome here is, but I do feel that a discussion being shut down on false pretenses is bad, and also that it is contributing to some inappropriate and very confused (although definitely good-faith) edits by other users of EEng's talk-page. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

AINB template feedback

I’ve noticed that {{AINB status}} is more focused on user conduct, while {{AIC status}} is focused on the status of the cleanup. It looks like both are being used together in some cases. What do you think about adding some of the functionality of AIC status to ANIB status; more specifically, perhaps it could display two separate banners, one for user status (warned, blocked, committed to not using AI, consented to cleanup, etc.) and one for cleanup status (cleanup requested, in progress, not needed, complete, etc.)? Alternatively, maybe it would make more sense to add this functionality (cleanup requested, complete, etc.) to {{AINB article}}? I think it’s important to clearly and independently state the status of both the behavioral problem and the cleanup work that still needs to be done, if any.

Another helpful thing might be to add some sort of list status to AINB article (i.e. list needed, list started, list created from December 2025-present, list complete, etc.) I₂Overcome ^talk 09:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes FYI, now that the noticeboard has been moved, your script no longer appears to be working. I₂Overcome ^talk 19:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

On it! Thanks @I2Overcome Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@I2Overcome fixed it! Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I₂Overcome ^talk 14:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Sahil Bloom deletion

Could you clarify if the article clearly met the guidelines for WP:G15 speedy deletion: by containing either Communication intended for the user or Implausible non-existent citations or nonsensical references? If not, then the page is ineligible for speedy deletion under WP:G15 and is clearly not eligible for deletion under WP:A7. Katzrockso (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso what article are you talking about? Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

See the topic title. You were pinged at WP:RfU as well, and I asked Katzrockso to move it out of there. Jay 💬 07:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Jay! Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

About Vandalism Accusation

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit on the "Bangladeshis" article and marked it as vandalism. Could you explain why my edit was considered vandalism? I want to understand and avoid mistakes in future. Jacklincoln47 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Jacklincoln47 I didn't mean that as being directed towards you, I was reverting because of other peoples edits. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Elyse Myers Edit War - Baseless & Unsubstantiated Reversions From User Jauerback

Jauerback has yet to provide a clear and concise argument for their constant revision of my contribution to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elyse_Myers

They have repeatedly reverted content back to how they think it should be, despite showing that they lack valid logical reasoning for such a decision.

"WP:BLP-concerns" is NOT clearly stated reasoning. Nor is it substantiated.

• No Original Research Added - Evidenced By Direct Citation.

• Point of View is strictly Neutral - using verbiage found within citations.

• All new information is Verifiable via Direct Citation from sources.

Initially, their reason for removing the edit containing reference to "Operation Watermelon" & Gaza was: "None of this is in the source added" ~Jauerback

Thus demonstrably- numerous direct citations were included there after however this was not enough to satisfy them- so they shift the goal post.

The Next issue they had- they presented with their incorrect statement: "Tiktok is not a source." ~Jauerback

This is despite the easily verifiable fact that TikTok DOES constitute a primary source when a video features direct, firsthand evidence of an event, such as eyewitness footage or an individual's personal testimony & It DOES function as a secondary source when a creator analyzes, summarizes, or comments on information recorded by others.

This can be proven with a simple google search.

Currently, their issue lies within their baseless and unsubstantiated claim that my contribution- the one they continue to revert, somehow mysteriously and ambiguously _{(as they have yet to state clear, concise, and elaborate reasoning behind their decision- beyond mere "concerns")} violates WP:BLP rules.

I suspect they have no valid argument for their constant reversion of my cited contributions.

Baseless, un-argued and unproven claims are not valid reasoning to revert an edit.

Every reason, every argument they've provided for their reversion of the contribution has been consistently refuted. They clearly cannot provide evidence of anything wrong with the contribution they so vehemently continue to revert.

Jauerback called upon you to place an edit block on the article- as a sly backhanded attempt to win this baseless edit war without needing to provide adequate reasoning- by making it structurally impossible for my account (as it stands) to continue fighting for the right for my contribution to remain on the article.

I EMPLORE you to see reason and logic here. ~2026-24565-65 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) From what I have seen, this user hasn't been involved in the discussion at all, and this seems like Wikipedia:Canvassing. Stop copy and pasting your argument and engage in discussion on the multiple forums you have been provided. Continuing to do this may have other users report you to administrator noticeboards which may lead to a block. Realtent (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Dr vulpes,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request VulpesBot 5

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VulpesBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 18:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Responding to your note

Re User_talk:Dr_vulpes/Archive2026#c-Dr_vulpes-20260315064900-ClerkBot-20260314235500, my sincere apologies, this is on my list to do but I've been super low capacity for Wikipedia lately! But see for one of my incomplete attempts. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Abdul Rashid Dostum protection

Was it unintentional that Abdul Rashid Dostum has both semi-protection and pending changes protection, or did you plan on having it go back to pending changes after semi-protection expires? Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 02:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 02:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Dr vulpes for accumulating at least 5 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 15:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Holden (Entrepreneur) deletion

Hi, back in May you deleted an article I made, Kevin Holden (Entrepreneur), I was just wondering if the article's contents are erased or if they're stored somewhere, I put a few days effort into that and it'd really suck if it's gone forever. Zenryzap (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Christine Morrissey has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Christine Morrissey has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Dr vulpes:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

May 2026 Administrator Elections – RFC Phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

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

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

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)