 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
Optional: write a lede — not necessarily a WP:LEAD. Interesting > encyclopedic.
October 2026 administrator elections began with nominations on 29 September.[a] Discussion is about to begin, followed by voting on 13 October.[a] Administrator elections have become the way the majority of editors become English Wikipedia administrators, since elections were instituted in September–October 2024 on a trial basis (see prior Signpost coverage). – B
The newly-established Wikimedia North America Hub, led by ___, employeed via WMNYC and Wikimeda Canada via ___ grant from the WMF, is conducting a survey to get feedback from Wikimedians connected to North America with the goal of learning how the Hub can best support, sustain, and grow "efforts and initiatives through streamlining access to resources, making connections, and boosting communication throughout the region." Are you based in North America? Join the conversation, let the Wikimedia North America Hub know what you think. – W
After the August 28–29 Arte y Cultura Wikicurious event at the Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico, the Wiki Puerto Rico organization has applied for a Rapid Grant. A newly formed Instagram page recently appeared. Is a Wikicommunity brewing in Puerto Rico? – W
On 18 September, Jimmy Wales posted his long-promised follow-up on the union issue:
Hi all, sorry it’s taken me so long to get this - the fault is mine as I’ve been extremely busy. But I also wanted to have a direct conversation with the team at WMF to make really sure that I wouldn’t get something wrong and cause any confusion! I have now spoken extensively with the team about when Littler was hired and other questions that we've received from the community. Attorneys at Littler were hired in April to help answer questions about the unionization process and prepare the organization for the legal responsibilities that it might require.
Again, I know and fully appreciate the concerns about Littler's other clients. As you know I shared those concerns earlier. The Wikimedia Foundation is a very complex global workforce and attorneys there were hired to provide legal advice and analysis on managing this complexity; they do not make decisions for the Foundation. That is the role of the leaders at the Foundation - they make those decisions based on the details of Wikimedia’s staff across countries, legal responsibilities, and values. I am satisfied that they have not, and will not, take any approach that conflicts with our values.
I said before that my hope was that this would be done as quickly and efficiently as possible. I’m happy that this has happened!
The Foundation reached an agreement with the union to avoid a hearing or delay the vote. The Foundation agreed to include every role requested by the CWA after discussing the scope of the unit with the union. From the time the request for a vote was made by CWA the vote took place in just under a month and a half and there were no delays. Thank goodness!
Foundation leadership remained neutral throughout this period and staff even said so. I really appreciate that. It also meant that they were rigorous about being quiet about everything during that time - almost anything might be interpreted as campaigning in some way so I’m glad they were quiet. Foundation leadership said repeatedly during this process that if staff voted to unionize then leadership would respect the results of that decision. Immediately after the election results, just as they promised they would, Foundation leadership clearly stated in messages to staff, community, and a public statement that they respect staff’s vote to unionize.
The Foundation immediately committed to bargaining in good faith and approaching next steps with respect. That should be mutual. At this point rather than coming up with elaborate schemes about the Foundation’s intent I want to encourage everyone to look at the facts. There was no union-busting here and requesting a vote so that all staff voices can be heard and represented in a democratic vote (with a secret ballot election) is very in line with our values. It’s worth noting that I was personally strongly supportive of this before and during the process and I’m proud of it - you don't judge whether a democratic process is necessary based on which direction people end up voting.
There are a lot of steps ahead and we all need to enter this process with assuming good faith because we are actually on the same side here. The movement is a lot of people, with a lot of interests - there are the staff of the WMF, there’s the management of the WMF, there are the chapters and affiliates - and their staff and management, there are the readers, the donors, and probably most important of all, there are all of us, the Wikipedians, across the entirety of the world. When we’re healthy as a community, we engage in disagreements with kindness, with respect, with the assumption of good faith, and with forgiveness for mistakes made. We’re on the same side because we’re here for the same reason: free knowledge for everyone, in their own language. Let’s not forget that! Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
The statement resulted in further discussion that was on the whole marked by a somewhat more conciliatory tone. – AK
Comment these items out if something happens.
Discuss this story
(This allows for greater visibility of discussions, makes archiving easier, and prevents discussions becoming disconnected from articles during the publication process)