Rank	Article	Class	Views	Image	Notes/about
1	Anna Sorokin		3,759,292		Even if most of this list was shaped by Super Bowl LVI, the article topping it has no connection to the NFL final. Instead we have Anna Sorokin, a German fraudster convicted of grand larceny and theft of services. Sorokin spent 4 years in New York pretending to be a wealthy heiress, and trying to establish herself as a socialite despite not having the money to maintain the lavish lifestyle she was trying to lead. She was eventually arrested after people started to notice she wasn't paying any of the bills she had accumulated, and ended up in prison. She's on the list because of #3, a dramatization of the period.
2	Dr. Dre		1,305,834		The first of many Super Bowl-related topics on the list, Dr. Dre was one of several performers at this event's halftime show. The show, described as a nostalgia-inducing performance of old-school West Coast hip-hop, received critical acclaim and a higher viewership than the game.
3	Inventing Anna		1,193,019		#1 owes her views to this, a Netflix series (producer Shonda Rimes pictured) about her activity that became the service's top-watched program, despite generally mixed reviews.
4	Eminem		1,083,853		Another performer at the Super Bowl halftime show, a track this artist performed reached the Top 10 in the Spotify streaming chart.
5	Matthew Stafford		1,082,400		The winning quarterback... at the Super Bowl. After 12 seasons with the perennial bottom feeder Detroit Lions, Stafford switched to the Los Angeles Rams this year, which proved a good move as they won the championship after being seeded fourth in the NFC.
6	Justin Trudeau		1,015,060		Well, my commentary from last week aged well. On February 14, the Canadian prime minister controversially invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the Canada convoy protest, the first time this had been done since the act was passed in 1988.
7	Mary J. Blige		1,004,235		Two more performers at the Super Bowl halftime show.
8	Snoop Dogg		991,505
9	Joe Burrow		978,747		The losing quarterback... at the Super Bowl. Burrow made the championship game in his second season as an NFL player, leading the Cincinnati Bengals into the Super Bowl for the first time since 1988.
10	2022 Winter Olympics		973,268		In other news, the Olympics are still going on.

• These lists exclude the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.

It's been a news-filled month for the UK House of Commons and Wikipedia. On 4 February, the Independent reported (subscription required) that Michael Gove's "leveling-up" plan plagiarised Wikipedia and contained many errors – including spelling mistakes and entire paragraphs that were repeated. Four days later, Debbie Hayton writing in UnHerd said that an editor battle over the biography of British MP Tonia Antoniazzi is "instructive of how a small group of activist editors can manipulate information to service their agenda". On 23 February, the New Statesman wrote that the Wikipedia pages for two MPs were whitewashed: a section about Bob Blackman's connections to Azerbaijan was removed from his article, and a section in the Gillian Keegan article related to the Post Office scandal was removed. Both removals were made from IP addresses tracing back to the Palace of Westminster. Neither Blackman nor Keegan could be reached by New Statesman for comment. – E, S

The Wikimedia Foundation's new project titled Wiki Unseen was reported on by Hyperallergic and jamaicans.com. The WMF launched the project on February 9 during Black History Month to amplify the voices of "the people who have shaped the world, but were systematically erased from knowledge spaces". The project pays artists for portraits of historical figures where no freely licensed illustrations are available. – E

• 
  Astrophysicist Mercedes Richards by artist Esther Griffith
• 
  Activist Asquith Xavier by artist Esther Griffith
• 
  Poet May Miller by artist Bukhtawar Malik
• 
  Filmmaker William Greaves by artist Bukhtawar Malik
• 
  Biochemist Marian Ewurama Addy by artist Enam Bosokah
• 
  Artificial intelligence scientist Rose Dieng-Kuntz by artist Enam Bosokah

ESPN reported on vandalism in Wikipedia sports articles. Matt Hamilton is given as an in-depth example. His article briefly contained colorful vandalism, among them that "curling is not a sport", that Hamilton had donated to charities supporting irritable bowel syndrome because he suffered from it himself, and that he was a long-lost relative of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros., a viper, and a cougar hunter. The story applauded vandalism fighters, including Earl Andrew. Hamilton's article is currently pending changes protected. The ESPN article is well-written and its analysis is interesting. But sooner or later, we should all recognize that the best journalism about vandalism is no journalism about vandalism. Criticism just encourages the vandals. – E, S

BolaVIP reports that Danish center-back Mads Fenger lost a chance for playing for Belgian soccer team Zulte Waregem because Wikipedia misstated his height as 186 cm (6 feet 1 inch), rather than the actual 183 cm (6 feet 0 inches). "The transfer failed due to Wikipedia." With such a small difference, it's important to get the details right. Until it was changed on January 24, Wikipedia reported that Fenger stood at 185 cm, not 186 cm. If anybody is to blame for Fenger not getting the job, it's Zulte Waregem, for making the decision based on such a trivial detail. Or perhaps the fault lies with Fenger, who may not have stood up straight during the measurement. More likely, the fault lies with BolaVIP, which preferred to take a cheap shot at Wikipedia without checking the facts. – S

The Fall 2021 Introduction to Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies (GWSS) class at the University of Minnesota Morris is another class that joined the over 500 universities that have been creating content for Wikipedia through the Wiki Education program since 2013. The class of 24 students contributed in unique ways, adding 12,000 words and 57 references to articles that had received 37,000 views as of the end of the semester in December. New articles included Lissa Yellow Bird-Chase, the founder of Sahnish Scouts, a citizen-led organization dedicated to finding justice for missing people and their families. – E

The Verge featured an independent interview with Molly White (GorillaWarfare onwiki), known for her Request for Comment on Meta to stop cryptocurrency donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. The interview covered White's Web 3 Is Going Just Great, launched on December 14th, and her views on cryptocurrency, NFTs, DAOs and Wikipedia. – E

After countless articles already existing about Wikipedia rabbit holes, Mashable is at it again with another story. This one suggests exploring List of common misconceptions, Military marine mammal, COINTELPRO and more. Have fun descending deeper and deeper into the depths of the wiki. – E

On Valentine's Day Input reprinted these 2008 photos from the High five article which go viral every so often. Input tells you everything you'd ever want to know about the photos, including the uploader's real name and profession. Not to worry, though – the uploader has posted his profession, first name and family name on-Wiki. – B, E

• The Met's Editathon: The Metropolitan Museum of Art is hosting an editathon related to the BHM exhibit Before Yesterday We Could Fly: An Afrofuturist Period Room. Coverage included an All Arts article as well as the Met's own site.
• Indian ministry's Wikipedia-like portal: The Indian Express reports that India's Union Culture Ministry is planning to create a "portal like Wikipedia on 'unsung heroes'".
• Fiction, like TV – not reality, like Wikipedia: Deadline praises a drama set during the Watergate scandal for not being a "Wikipedia rundown".
• It's nepotism, baby: "[P]eople born into dynasties of wealth, fame, prestige and connections have a greater opportunity to pursue stardom for themselves", evidenced by the fact that famous people like Maude Apatow often have parents with bluelinks on Wikipedia – The Internet continues to erode the myth of meritocracy (MEL Magazine)
• How to make polite conversation in South Africa: An economist writing for The Daily Maverick uses MediaWiki API data to track potential edit wars and thus decide which South Africa-related topics would be best to avoid during the dinner party you might host in Port Elizabeth/Gqeberha—the name of the city depends on which side you support.

The Wikimedia Foundation established the Community Tech team in 2015 as a product team devoted to building features and making changes that active Wikimedia contributors need the most. Rather than those on the team coming up with their own ideas and proposing them to the community, the team decided to let the community tell us what to work on. To do this, they invited the community to participate in a cross-project survey to set our agenda for the year. This consisted of two weeks for contributors to propose ideas, followed by two weeks of support voting.

325 proposals were submitted to the 2022 survey, with 1578 editors contributing 9554 support votes, producing a ranked list of 270 ideas. Community Tech committed to investigating and addressing the as many as it gets in light of the results of the prioritization process and external factors [they] can't change — designing and building new tools themselves, or collaborating with other teams and volunteers who were working in those areas.

Out of the top 10 winning proposals, Community Tech has completed two of them (copy-pasting from diffs, and disambiguation link warnings), and is currently working on one, leaving 7 that are incomplete. Some community members expressed concerns that the 2022 Survey would yield the same result, with wishes having long delays in implementation. Community Tech responded, pointing to their prioritization method and policy of research[ing] projects before committing to them. With the 2021 Survey, the Team picked 4 wishes to implement and publicly declined one. More details are available on Meta.

The Editing team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been hard at work developing tools for the talk pages project. As of 18 February, the Reply Tool is available to everyone (logged in and out) on desktop at all Wikimedia wikis except for fi.wiki (T297533), and ru.wiki (T297410). The Reply Tool is planned to be turned on at the English Wikipedia for all editors using the desktop interface on 7 March 2022 (Phabricator task). Registered editors are welcome to opt-in to the final testing period and provide any feedback, ask questions, or report issues to the Talk Pages project team in the discussion at the project talk page. Additionally, the team is working on introducing functionality that will alert you, in real-time, when someone posts a new comment in the discussion you are using the Reply Tool within. Instructions for how to try the prototype and share feedback about it can be found here. You can see the full list of what talk pages project features are available at what wikis by visiting the MediaWiki wiki.

After many feature requests for a dark mode gadget, one has been created in December 2021. It is based on the work of Wikimedia Design team members Volker E. and Alex Hollender, supported by volunteer MusikAnimal and others. To enable the gadget, go to your gadget preferences, and enable the gadget "Dark mode toggle: Enable a toggle for using a light text on dark background color scheme". The tool has been criticized for its completely black background color with a white foreground causing eye strain for some. More details can be found here. Happy darkness!

As reported in a special report in The Signpost last month ("WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment"), things went very wrong in December 2021 in a class supported by Wiki Education's Wikipedia Student Program. I came away from the ensuing discussion understanding that there's a gap between what we do and the community's understanding of what we do. Our program is the single largest outreach effort in the Wikimedia community. In 2021 we brought over 12,000 student editors to Wikipedia, who added over 9.6 million words to 12,000 existing articles and created 1,000 new articles.

It's human nature to make judgements based on extreme cases, both good and bad. And once we’ve found these patterns, confirmation bias does the rest. If you only come across outstanding student work — the student who revamps a mess into a high quality summary, or the student who creates a new article — you come away thinking students' work is exceptional. And when you read about the kind of incident stemming from our program that was highlighted in January's Signpost, you can get the impression that the results of student editing are (as one editor said in the discussion) "decisively mixed". My experience, as a Wikipedian since 2004 who supports the 12,000+ student editors writing on Wikipedia each year through Wiki Education’s programs, is different. I see almost everything students do.

I'm writing this as User:Guettarda, a longtime contributor to English Wikipedia. But I'm also writing this as User:Ian (Wiki Ed), the Senior Wikipedia Expert at Wiki Education. Wiki Education is a US-based nonprofit bridging the gap between Wikipedia and academia. Our biggest program, the Wikipedia Student Program, supports 12,000+ student editors a year, all of whom attend a higher education institution in the United States or Canada.

Our organization has its origins in an effort to increase the pool of Wikipedia contributors, and to improve article quality. This project has grown from an initial 18-month pilot in 2010, involving 24 universities and over 800 students, into our current program: in Fall 2021 we supported 5,972 student editors, who contributed 4.7 million words to over 6,400 articles. Since 2010, more than 102,000 students have added 85 million words to 116,000 articles. Our program is the single largest outreach effort in the Wikimedia community by count of new editors recruited, articles edited, and content added. Moreover, almost all of this content passes Wikimedia editorial review and remains in Wikipedia.

Both in terms of bringing in new editors, and in terms of bringing in high quality content, Wiki Education has been very successful.

In the course of normal editing, you encounter the work of our student editors quite regularly. They create new articles about minerals. They expand existing articles about environmental science. They write about music of the world, and African archaeology, and poetry. They write about deafness in various countries. Wiki Education's courses cover nearly every discipline taught in higher education. Our program for university partnerships is one of the Wikimedia movement's biggest success stories for a way to systematically improve content areas.

Students add a lot of scholarly citations to Wikipedia. A 2020 paper by researchers Jiro Kikkawa, Masao Takaku, and Fuyuki Yoshikane reported that in 2016 15.5% of the editors who added scholarly citations to English Wikipedia articles were participants in Wiki Education-supported programs. Citations matter because they're the way Wikipedia articles achieve credibility despite being written by pseudonymous editors. And thanks to university libraries, students have easy access to a wealth of scholarly work that might be difficult for most readers (and many Wikipedia editors) to get access to.

In 2016, students in George Waldbusser's Biogeochemical Earth class transformed a redirect into an article about the Boring Billion, an approximately billion-year period in the Earth's history where very little happened. In 2020, another Wikipedian took the raw material that the students had created and converted it into the Good Article that exists today. It's impossible to say whether they would have created this article from scratch if they didn't have the student work to improve.

But the idea that student work creates an impetus for article improvement is consistent with what Kai Zhu, Dylan Walker and Lev Muchnik found in their 2020 study of the impacts of student editing. Using data from Wiki Education's Dashboard, they were able to trace the fate of 3,300 articles that were edited by students in Fall 2016, and compare them with a control group that students hadn't touched. It turned out that after the students had finished editing, the articles they worked on had 12% more page views than the control set. This also translated into more page views downstream, in the articles linked from these ones, and more edits from other Wikipedians. As I wrote in a 2020 blog post:

At the start of 2016 the article about Kalief Browder — an African American boy who was imprisoned in Riker's Island for three years without trial for the crime of allegedly stealing a backpack — was about 380 words long. In spring term that year, a student editor in Fabian Neuner's Black Lives and Deaths class worked on Browder's biography and expanded it to more than 5,500 words. The difference in this case is that the article has continued to attract edits since the class ended. In the remainder of 2016, after the class ended, the article received 135 edits, almost precisely the same number of edits (133) as it had received in the previous two years. Not only that, the article has continued to develop as other editors have tweaked and modified the article. At the end of the class, 82% of the article was the work of one student editor; today it's only 53%. The article about the short life and tragic death of Kalief Browder hasn't gotten much longer, but its overall quality has continued to improve.

Because students tend not to stick around beyond the duration of their class, it's easy to think of their impacts as one-off. But instructors do tend to stick around, and over the course of many classes, an instructor can make a real impact on a topic area.

Since 2013, Erik Herzog has included the Wikipedia assignment in his chronobiology class, which runs every other Spring. When chronobiologists Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Michael W. Young were awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the world rushed to Wikipedia to discover who these people were. And Wikipedia's biographies of these three scientists existed, for the most part, because of the work that was done by students in these classes.

Similarly, since 2012 Joan Strassmann's behavioral ecology classes have added well over 1.8 million words to Wikipedia in articles about bees, wasps, spiders, and flies. Her sister Diana Strassmann's classes have added over 1.3 million words to Wikipedia, primarily in the areas of poverty, justice and human capability. Last term they created two new articles: Medical racism in the United States and Anti-Apartheid movement in the United States. Other students successfully contributed to articles like Discrimination based on skin color and Racial disparities in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Past classes have made edits like this one to the Discrimination against drug addicts article and this one to the Mental health and immigration detention article. Both classes have had students stick around after the end of the class to take their work through the Good Article process.

As of 2020, Wiki Education brings in 19% of new active editors on the English Wikipedia. Student editors in programs supported by Wiki Education make up about 3% of all active editors on the English Wikipedia. In other words, the interactions you had with a student editor, or the work you read (good or bad), isn't necessarily representative of the whole, just as an interaction with any editor isn’t representative of the community as a whole. The scale at which our program operates is massive.

The community has long been aware of the issue of systemic bias in Wikipedia, and the fact that this is a problem that is exacerbated by the composition of the community. According to WMF's survey data, only 0.5% of Wikipedia editors in the US are Black or African American, while 8% of our student editors identify as Black or African American. Only 5.2% of editors in the US are Hispanic, while 12% of our students are. And while only 22% of Wikipedia contributors are women, 67% of our student editors identify as women (and another 3% identify as non-binary or other).

The relatively narrow demographic base of our contributors is part of the reason why large areas of content are under-represented. The issue of the coverage of women on Wikipedia is quite well known, but this is also true for members of minoritized groups and for areas in the Global South. Even within the United States, the contributions of students from an Appalachian State University class on The History of Coal were eye-opening to me: it was apparent from their writing (and from the emails I exchanged with some of them) that they had a familiarity with this topic that most editors lack. In particular, their creation of the Broad form deed article filled an important lacuna in Wikipedia's coverage, but one that may not jump out at you if you don’t live in an area where strip-mining regularly occurred on land occupied by people who only owned the surface rights.

Adding contributors who are outside of the normal demographics of Wikipedia contributors may not be able to fix the problem of systemic bias that stems from what McDowell and Vetter have called Wikipedia’s "logocentric reliance on written knowledge", but it is a valuable part of the community’s overall toolkit to improve this problem.

How do you support 6,000 students at once without creating a massive free-for-all where students are struggling, failing, and generally taxing the resources of the community? And, it’s worth asking, are we doing that?

Our model involves supporting instructors in higher education in the United States and Canada who take their students through the "Wikipedia assignment". After going through an online orientation, our Assignment Design Wizard takes instructors through a process that uses their input to create a timeline for the class. The instructor then submits their course page for approval. My colleague Helaine Blumenthal goes through each submission, and makes sure that they are suitable. Since instructors can customize the timelines, Helaine ensures that the key components are all there, and that the class is following our best practices developed since 2010.

Students create a Wikipedia account and sign up on the Wiki Education Dashboard After this, students are prompted to take several training modules and go through a series of exercises. After this, students begin the process of drafting an article. This involves selecting a few candidate articles (students are encouraged to select stub- or start-class articles, and stay away from GAs and FAs). Once they've narrowed their choices down to one topic, the Dashboard takes them through a step-by-step process in which they build a bibliography, draft their contribution, peer-review one-another’s work, and finally move their work to mainspace.

People being people, problems occur. The Dashboard monitors a lot of what students do, and sends a whole range of alerts. If students are behind on the trainings, the Dashboard will email the instructor and ask them to remind their students to get up to date. If students assign themselves FAs or GAs, the Dashboard emails them and their instructors and strongly encourages them to pick a more suitable article. If they assign themselves an article subject to discretionary sanctions, I am notified. If they edit GAs or FAs, I am notified. If they move their sandbox to mainspace, I am notified. And most importantly, if their work is flagged as a potential copyvio, I get notified (as do their instructors). These are just some of the things we do; we’re constantly looking for new and better ways to monitor student work, and to catch problems before they become problems. Also, the help of community members who flag me when things go wrong is immensely helpful.

Beyond this, students are encouraged to get in touch if they have questions or run into problems. We provide multiple ways for them to get in touch, either on-wiki or through the Dashboard. We also encourage instructors to get in touch with us, to ask questions and to relay student questions. In addition, the Dashboard lets me monitor classes and check in on what students in any class are up to. We have things set up to pay additional attention to classes working in areas where they may run into problems. This system enables us to head off potential problems, intervene early where we can, and be notified when something goes wrong. Of course, things do go wrong sometimes — and these are usually the ones you hear about — but for the vast majority of the 12,000+ students editing every year, things go well, and Wikipedia gets high-quality information added.

As an individual, I can't imagine anything I do would have a bigger impact on the world than my contributions to Wikipedia. Health permitting, I might be able to contribute to Wikipedia for another 30 years. But every term working with student editors I make an impact that’s orders of magnitude greater than what I can do on my own. Working with student editors allows me to help add content that would otherwise take decades to be added. This is why what we're doing matters to me.

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted in an uptick of AN/I reports for related disruption, as well as arbitration enforcement activity in the Eastern Europe sanctions area. A variety of reports and suggestions were filed, regarding POV-pushers, incivility from some new users, and other misguided activity. Since the invasion began only a few days ago, developments are ongoing. The article covering the invasion was selected for In the news on 23 February 2022; it had over 2 million pageviews on 24 February, and again on 25 February. The parent article, Russo-Ukrainian War, also had over a million pageviews on 24 February, dropping slightly the following day. – B, E

The 2022 Steward elections ended on 26 February. The global Wikimedia community elected 5 candidates representing the diversity of our Movement. The Signpost congratulates AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime and Vermont, the newly elected Stewards, and thanks the Elections Committee for their hard work. – E

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation proposes to support the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Task Force. The purpose of the task force is to advise leadership development work by the Community Development team as well as in broader community initiatives in the near term, pending any future changes of direction coming from the Movement Charter and Global Council currently being formed. The applications for the Task force will open on 1 March 2022. Interested editors are invited to participate on Meta. – E

The fourth rendition of Wiki Loves Folklore began on 1 February 2022 and will end on 15 March 2022 (UTC). The contest is dedicated to celebrating the unique and rich traditions and culture that make up the world's unique and diverse heritage. The winners of the contest will be announced on Commons on July 25, 2022. Wiki Loves Folklore was extended 15 days after the original end date of 28 February 2022. – E

• Oversight group renamed: The Oversight group was renamed globally to "suppress" after 6 years of discussion and implementation.
• WMF conversation meeting: The Community Resilience and Sustainability (CR&S) team is hosting a new conversation meeting (‘previously called ‘Office Hour’) led by its Vice President Maggie Dennis. Topics within scope for this call include Movement Strategy coordination, Board Governance, Trust and Safety (and the Universal Code of Conduct), Community Development, and Human Rights. More details are available on Meta.
• WMF global conversations event: The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation will host a global conversations event on the concept of Hubs on March 12, 2022. It is the second event focusing specifically on Hubs. Interested editors can find more information on Meta.
• New administrators: The Signpost welcomes English Wikipedia's newest administrator, Modussiccandi.
• Articles for Improvement: This week's Article for Improvement is Google. Please be bold and help to improve this article.
• CEE March meetup: The March 2022 talks from the Wikimedians from Central and Eastern Europe partnership will be hosted on 5 March. More details are available on Meta.
• Milestones: The following Wikimedia projects reached milestones this week: Moksha Wikipedia (10,000 pages), Macedonian Wikipedia (100,000 registered users), Icelandic Wikibooks (500 book modules), Navajo Wikipedia (20,000 articles), Paiwan Wikipedia (200 articles)

"The first casualty when war comes is truth" is a well-known quote. It is sometimes attributed to Hiram Johnson but probably older than this quote by Johnson from 1929: “The first casualty when war comes is truth and whenever an individual nation seeks to coerce by force of arms another, it always acts, and insists that it acts in self-defense" (Locomotive Engineers Journal, February 1929, p. 109). Does that remind anyone of a recent war?

Here we present a tour of war photography. We start in Crimea in 1855 and end it in Kyiv, about 550 miles to the north, about 165 years later. This tour makes stops in the United States in the 1860s, Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and Vietnam in the 1970s.

The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a war in which Russia lost to an alliance of France, England, the Ottoman Empire and Piedmont-Sardinia. The image of that war is largely captured by drawings and paintings (Charge of the Light Brigade), but there were also photographers wandering around, notably Roger Fenton. (Perhaps I should use the words "driving around", because as shown below, camera equipment in those days required a vehicle to transport.) Fenton didn’t capture the cruelties of war, but gave a lively picture of the environment of the Crimean War.

• 
  Roger Fenton’s photographic van
• 
  3rd Light Dragoons, British Army (photo by Roger Fenton)
• 
  Valley of Death (version with cannonballs, by Roger Fenton)

Probably the first real war photographs were made by Mathew Brady in the American Civil War, around 1862. His bloody photographs paint a horrific image of the reality of war.

• 
  Mathew Brady
• 
  Confederate dead, Second Battle of Fredericksburg (1863)
• 
  American Civil War (1863)

Wars produce iconic photographs. Robert Capa will be mainly remembered for his photos of the Spanish Civil War (The Falling Soldier, 1936), but he also made photographs during World War II in Germany. War photographs can also be used as a weapon: the weapon of propaganda. It is well known that governments always try to prevent photographs of war scenes and body bags from being widely circulated. These photos influence public opinion. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief, used photographs to effectively work the minds of the German people.

• 
  The ruins of Guernica
• 
  Veterans of the 3rd Ukrainian Front march in Red Square in Moscow's 1945 victory parade
• 
  Leni Riefenstahl photographing Adolf Hitler, 1934

The opinion of the American people on the Vietnam War was heavily influenced by photos – think of the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém, a photo by Eddie Adams of the Saigon execution in 1969, or the picture by Nick Ut of children hit by napalm attacks in 1972.

• 
  Photographer Eddie Adams
• 
  World Press Photo 1973

The Russian invasion of Ukraine began less than a week ago. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and consequently, anyone in Ukraine with pictures to share can upload them to Wikipedia. Look carefully, and keep in mind that photographs are used to gain influence. So far, only a few photos have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The Wikipedia editing event for Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2022 was still being supported by the organizers as of February 24. While the event's call is for text editing, anyone who wants to join current editorial discussions about Ukraine – whether for current events or any other part of society – can talk to editors on the talk page there. Be aware that the discussion may be difficult.

• 
  Wreckage in Eastern Ukraine, Feb. 2022
• VOA video filmed between Kharkiv and Kyiv Feb. 24
• 
  Residential building hit by a Russian rocket
• 
  Wreckage in Kyiv, 24 Feb. 2022

So here's what happened this month.

• A very large announcement was made regarding a number of very old discretionary sanctions, which the Committee began a process to review last month. The beginning of this process was covered in last month's arbitration report; its conclusion will be covered in this one. Essentially, a number of sanctions were lifted in areas where they hadn't been relevant for years, or in some cases, over a decade. The full list of sanctions lifted are:
• Senkaku Islands (instituted in 2011)
• Waldorf education (instituted in 2013)
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy (instituted in 2014)
• Landmark Worldwide (instituted in 2015)
• Transcendental Meditation movement (instituted in 2011)

Additionally, some article probation remedies were abolished:

• Remedy 5 ("Mentorship") of the Neuro-linguistic programming case (instituted in 2006)
• Remedy 2.1 ("Article probation") of the Occupation of Latvia case (instituted in 2007)
• Remedy 2 ("Article-related Probation") of the Shiloh case (instituted in 2006)
• Remedy 14.3 ("Articles semi-protected") of the Obama articles case (instituted in 2009)
  • Finding of Fact 3 ("Articles placed on probation") of the Obama articles case (instituted in 2008), which was the subject of a 2009 review in Remedy 1.1 ("Article probation review") and addressed by a March 2015 ANI thread

• Timwi, an administrator who gained the bit in 2003, was the subject of a case this month regarding the use of administrator tools in content disputes; a lengthy arbitration request with statements from many parties concluded with a February 11 motion warning him that "the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community". The Committee further said that it would consider "any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings".
• Another case was opened, this one regarding Jonathunder. It bore strong similarities to the Timwi case – a user who had been an administrator for nearly two decades (in this case since 2006) was accused of inappropriate tool use during a content dispute. While the Committee accepted the case request, Jonathunder's lack of response to the proceedings caused it to be suspended on the 26th. During this time, Jonathunder was temporarily desysopped, pending the outcome of the case. The case will automatically close in six months with a permanent desysop if Jonathunder does not return to Wikipedia and request the case to be resumed.
• The Skepticism and coordinated editing case, accepted by the Committee and covered by The Signpost last month, has proceeded. Since I made a preliminary statement in the case urging it to be accepted, I will again err on the side of caution and not go into too much detail. Various pieces of additional evidence were supplied, the evidence phase was closed, the workshop phase took place, and the proposed decisions are currently being voted on by arbitrators.
• HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole were placed under a mutual interaction ban by a February 11 motion, with SquareInARoundHole additionally being forbidden to edit a specific article under dispute.

• Miki Filigranski was unblocked on January 30, following a successful appeal of a May 2021 indefinite block.
• Following a period of inactivity, the checkuser and oversight rights of Callanecc were removed on February 2. On behalf of the Committee, Maxim thanked Callanecc for his service as a functionary.
• The Committee made a general comment, in which it was clarified that the granting of an appeal regarding sanctions "does not necessarily mean that the initial decision that resulted in the sanction was incorrect at the time, unless the appeal announcement specifically says so". Moreover, the Committee said that they would "continue to consult with the community, or to have appeals posted for review by the community, in appropriate cases".

• Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FDW777, on February 1, was closed with the sanction being lifted.
• Just another Wikipedian editor, on February 2, was closed after Just another Wikipedian editor was blocked as a sock.
• Clean Copy, on February 3, was closed with Clean Copy topic-banned from Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, broadly construed.
• 71.114.58.144, on February 3, resulted in the IP address in question being blocked for six months as a standard administrative action.
• 207.47.175.199 was closed with no action on February 11.
• Ypatch was also closed with no action, on February 12.
• Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Iskandar323 closed with the duration of Iskandar323's topic ban being "reduced to time served" on February 13.
• Grandmaster, on February 18, closed with Grandmaster being indefinitely topic-banned from the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area.
• Iskandar323, on February 18, was closed without action, and with the filer cautioned against filing arbitration enforcement requests without having attempted prior venues of dispute resolution.
• Venkat TL, closed on February 18 with no action taken and a reminder issued to involved parties to "moderate their tone, and to refrain from edit warring".
• Mzajac, February 19, was closed as an issue beyond the remit of arbitration enforcement (namely, an accusation of administrator misconduct).
• Hemantha was closed without action on February 22, with an exhortation to exhaust other means of dispute resolution before requesting arbitration enforcement.
• Kautilya3, February 22, was withdrawn by the filer.
• ObtuseAngles, February 26, was closed after the user in question was blocked as a sock.

Three enforcement requests are currently open:

• Nobita456
• Baxter329
• Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ypatch

Two clarification requests were opened this month: Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption (closed) and Palestine-Israel articles (still open).

There have been a total of 87 enforcement actions logged this month.

• Abortion: 1 semi-protection
• American politics 2: 7 semi-protections and 1 indefinite PC.
• Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: 1 warning, 1 topic ban and 1 semi-protection
• Biographies of Living Persons: 1 topic-ban vacated and 10 semi-protections
• BLP issues on British politics articles: 1 indefinite PC.
• COVID-19: 3 EC-protections and 5 semi-protections
• Eastern Europe: 6 EC-protections and 31 semi-protections
• Gender and sexuality: 1 semi-protection, 1 PC and 1 indefinitite article ban
• India-Pakistan-Afghanistan: 1 EC-protection and three semi-protections
• Iranian politics: 1 PC
• Kurds and Kurdistan: 1 semi-protection
• Macedonia: 1 semi-protection
• Palestine-Israel articles: 6 EC-protections
• Pseudoscience: 1 topic ban and one semi-protection

This humorous spoof of a Wikipedia notability guideline, originally titled Notability (mailboxes), was started in 2021. You may edit the guideline, but please do so at WP:MAILBOX and not on The Signpost.

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. This notability how-to guide for mailboxes summarizes consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a mailbox or mailbox-related topic should be written, merged, deleted, or further developed. For advice about how to write mailbox articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mailboxes and Wikipedia:Mailbox article guideline.

For the purposes of this guide, a mailbox (also known as a letter box) is defined as a receptacle for receiving incoming mail at a private residence or business. A mailbox-related article (MRA) is defined as an article related to mailboxes. A non-mailbox-related article (NMRA) is defined variously as either an article not related to mailboxes or an article related to something that is not mailboxes.

This guide is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NMAIL, WP:NPOBOX, WP:NPOSTOFFICE, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for a mailbox not to be notable under the provisions of this guide but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if a mailbox is notable under this guide.

1. A non-cool mailbox is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the mailbox or its owner.
2. A cool mailbox is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the mailbox or its owner.
3. A very cool mailbox is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the mailbox or its owner.
4. A mailbox flag is presumed notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the mailbox flag, the mailbox to which it is attached, or its mailbox's owner. Mailbox flags which are determined to be non-notable are generally redirected to the page for the mailbox to which they are attached.
5. All carrier pigeons are presumed to be notable.

Some new editors attempt to create a page for their mailbox as their first article, and these are often nominated for deletion. It takes a lot of work to create an article, so if your mailbox article has been nominated for deletion, this may feel very discouraging. But don't panic just yet—deletion isn't automatic; it's a process. While mailbox articles do sometimes get deleted, and authors of non-notable mailbox articles do sometimes get permanently banned from ever editing or reading Wikipedia again and then defenestrated for good measure, this doesn't always happen.

Maybe your initial reaction was feeling hurt, or even angry. Know that plenty of established users have had their mailbox articles nominated for deletion. People will (or at least will try to) argue objectively about whether or not the mailbox is worthy of being in Wikipedia, so try not to take the deletion discussion personally. Listen to the reasons given in the nomination. Address or refute those reasons as best you can (preferably backed with reliable sources, such as the International Journal of Mailbox Studies), and try to improve the article accordingly. Please note that sources that you received via a mailbox cannot be used to support the notability of that mailbox due to the conflict of interest.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mailboxes in Red
• Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep