Checklist

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes

I posted news from today about Serbian Wikipedia editors banned

This is a development in a complicated multi-year story. These banned editors are highly active, with at least one each highly active in English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons. I linked previous Signpost coverage here and have this framed to include a general explanation of what bans are and what they mean.

We have time to develop this but I started it now. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Believe it or not, I've managed to work on and complete the article myself, hopefully I didn't turn it into an absolute trainwreck... Feel free to make further edits! Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I have a document of private notes about this case. It is not intended to be sensitive - it is just a collection of public links including to popular discussions on Serbian Wikipedia and some notes - but also I am not confident enough to share it here because something might become sensitive if I posted it all without care and it got misinterpreted. Do you want them?

For anyone else reading, if anyone wants to get access to these notes then identify yourself to me intent to edit or review this article. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Sorry for replying just now...

I don't think I would have enough time to properly check them out and add more details to the article, but if you do think they might provide some more insight, then go for it! I mean, you were the one who reported the news in the first place... : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I added more text and links. Review if you can. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: you said ppl requested anonymity for safety. Was privacy also a concern? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I meant privacy with the intent to create safety. I have notes that I can share with another Signpost editor or trusted Wikipedian. I am trying to balance my own not knowing anything about Serbia or its wiki community, versus trying to include some useful amount of local community perspective on what is happening. I also want to balance respect for the Wikimedia Foundation's decision - which so far as I know is welcomed and accepted - against the Wikimedia community's wish to learn enough about what happened to be able to govern itself, detect if other such problems exist, and to understand effective moderation.

If you see a way to better report this tone then freely change. I was not careful or precise in my wording, and it is all up for rephrasing. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Done! I've tried to simplify some passages, and left a little note about the "concerned community" term you left towards the start of the article, since its meaning wasn't so clear to me. Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry On the occasion of the global banning of six editors Марко Станојевић and SimplyFreddie is arbitrarily requested that the interface administrator and system operator rights be revoked, which was done. This wiki currently has 10 admins. ~2026-23876-90 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:VPP - proposal to redo enwp as Esperanto
• WP:RFA - two joke RfAs, including a second mop to an established administrator

I don't know if we ought to cover April Fools' Day pranks but I noted the ones above. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh I didn't kow these were cataloged. Found Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2026. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I've moved Bri's original blurb on the partial bans on AI-generated content from ITM to N&N, since we should do a better service to the readers by hosting it there. I'm afraid I won't have enough time to work on that myself, though, since I've already spent the whole day completing the blurb on the sr.wiki bans and re-shuffling the rest of the articles on In the media...

Still, I hope all of that helps! Oltrepier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Bri just for a heads-up. Oltrepier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My blurb on the AI ban is finally done. I can't help you further, though... Oltrepier (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Politico's Eulogy for CIA Factbook does not mention Wikipedia, but it feels very encyclopedia-adjacent. Maybe it can be worked in somewhere? The closure of this and threatened blocking of sites to Internet Archive so close together seem to augur … something. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Opinion and Op-Ed slots are already taken, I guess we could save it for the next issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bri: perhaps the former piece could be mentioned in "In the media" or as a note in "News and notes" this time, and a more thorough piece could be published in the next issue. Another option could be to use another section like "In focus" or "Essay", if you and the EIC can agree, perhaps with a thorough analysis of how the Factbook is cited in Wikipedia, discussed on talk pages, etc., and opinions on what could or should be used instead on Wikipedia going forward for sourcing similar information. ↠Pine (✉) 03:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put a brief mention as a note in News and notes. Was there a discussion on-wiki? I could not find any. Oh, Politico was running the syndicated AP story so I credited it as AP and linked directly to apnews.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I usually report milestones in active administrators in News and notes. Could someone please double-check this before I include it?

Our last milestone (low) was 418 active administrators on 2024-10-07, reported in 2024-10-19 News and notes. We dropped below the former low point on April 10, and now are looking at 414 for a few days straight.

curprev 16:14, 13 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,749 bytes +7  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank
12 April 2026
curprev 16:14, 12 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,742 bytes +1  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank
11 April 2026
curprev 16:13, 11 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,741 bytes −58  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank

Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, we are at 414, and this is the lowest it has ever been since we started tracking the admin count in 2014. Your interpretation of the bot count is correct and besides that this interpretation matches the analysis on this that Signpost last published. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now has dropped to 412. I shall write up in News and notes later this day. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri WP:AELECT4 is coming up. I have written into the Brief notes section. Feel free to merge into the drop in active admins story! – robertsky (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good the way it is, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist