User talk:Kusma

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). 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) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kusma

Thanks for agreeing to review this article. I hope you have had a great new year so far and look forward to hearing your comments. This is my first GA nomination so please let me know if there is anything you would like me to do before you prepare your comments.

Cheers

Aemilius Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Kusma and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Gerda Arendt § Bundestag archives. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chorchapu, sorry, I was offwiki for a while and did not see this until now. It looks like you have received a useful answer. I usually enjoy requests like this, just could not help this time. —Kusma (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly alright. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. 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 conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,
I'm impressed by the amount of effort you put into it.
Even if you had failed it, I would still be deeply grateful for your effort. Keep up the great work. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 17:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. 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 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi. I was thinking that it is silly for the GA process to have both Pledges & Review Circles. I put together some notes (below) but I figure it would be rude to post them on the GA Talk page without asking you for your input first.

The Good Article system has two processes – Pledges and Review Circles – that are both designed to facilitate GA reviews by exchange systems that are intended to provide independent, high-quality reviews, and to avoid low-quality "quid pro quo" reviews. The two processes are a lot alike, and I'm wondering if they could be consolidated as follows:

1. Change the GA Review Circles page to direct editors to the Pledge page. Update the Pledge guidelines as follows:
2. After you place your nomination in the Pledge queue, you may begin reviewing the other article(s) for your Pledge obligation immediately. Or, you can wait until your nomination's review is completed.
3. You should start reviewing the other article(s) no later than one week after your own nomination's review is complete. Complete the review within 7 days of starting it (unless the nominator is non-responsive)
4. When selecting an article to review: prioritize articles that are (a) waiting in the Pledge queue; and (b) older. You are free to review articles not in the Pledge queue, but favor the older Pledge nominations.
5. If an editor is abusing the Pledge system by not fulfilling their obligations they will be politely asked to refrain from using the Pledge system.

Points 3, 4, and 5 above are intended to tweak the Pledge system to give it some of the responsiveness that Review Circles currently provide; while sill giving participants the flexibility of the current Pledge system (that is: they can wait until after their own nomination is complete to start the review; and can choose articles outside the Pledge queue).

What do you think? Noleander (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Noleander, thank you for your suggestion. It might actually be good to merge the two systems and build a single, better one from them. I have a few doubts, though. I think that people choose Review Circles over Pledges because they are guaranteed to get a review soon. The Pledges haven't quite done that in the last few months (for a variety of reasons; one of them is that I wasn't very active, another that we had a massive number of pledges from one editor that may have overwhelmed the system; I hope it is going more smoothly in the next few months). On the other hand, point (2) would probably be quite popular with some people (it is very much "voluntary QPQ"). Being able to choose the article you review instead of being assigned one (even if you can reject it) is a double edged sword: some articles will again wait longer for reviewers.

I have been too busy at work recently to do much GA review reform (I want to try to actually write some GAs in the little wikitime I have), but your idea is definitely worth thinking about and discussing with others, especially those who have experienced both systems. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. I'll post the suggestion to the GA Talk page soon. Noleander (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Kusma and is being posted here due to a redirect.)