We would like to return to our old practice of covering Arbcom as well as other major discussions on a regular basis. Perhaps we'll combine both types. We'll try to cover such discussions every month or so. Please let us know what you think in the comments section. – Sb

Arbcom desysoped Tinucherian and admonished him for violations of WP:UPE and WP:COI but did not ban him for the apparently obvious undeclared paid editing violations. Tinucherian had made an obscure COI declaration ten years ago and has referenced his LinkedIn page four times where his current paid editing position is made crystal clear. His use of admin tools has been rare since 2014, but he did rollback a promotional tag on his employer's page. His major offense against Arbcom may simply have been responding to their questions with a 2,000 word description of his past achievements on Wikipedia without addressing in any way the UPE and COI accusations against him. Arbcom did leave open the possibility of further community action.

In less dramatic changes, Arbcom also announced that the March 2025 CheckUser consultation did not result in any new CheckUsers, but GB fan did resign from the Oversight team. – Sb

From the 2025 Centralized discussion archive (WP:CENT):

An RFC closed in January ended with the rewrite of portions of WP:BITE. BITE is a behavioural guideline and often cited by editors.

Another RFC closed with the consensus to rewrite "Self-published sources", without consensus for any specific wording. The section is part of the WP:Verifiability policy.

In January, an RFC allowed those with page mover permission to enable two factor authentication on their accounts. Two-factor authentication on Wikimedia is currently experimental and optional – only users on specific trusted groups are currently allowed to use OAUTH.

A proposal to revive Informal mediation resulted instead in a recommendation to implement a process in Dispute resolution noticeboard for "mid-level informal mediation".

An RFC closed in January with consensus to discount "obvious use of generative LLMs" in discussions. A later RFC on AI closed with the consensus that most images "wholly generated by AI" should not be used on enwiki. In his close, S Marshall also recommended editors draft a guideline for broader community approval. – S