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.

For some reason, you have closed my discussion on English cities and their districts' pages, and said I am "trolling", despite me giving perfectly valid reasons for my argument. Because of this, it is obvious you only did this simply because you did not want to listen to my suggestion because you felt it would be a waste of your time. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a waste of my time, it's a waste of everyone's time and we have far more constructive things to be doing. As I stated in the closure summary, it's a very clear cut case of you refusing to get the point despite multiple editors explaining to you why we do not, and cannot, consider settlements and district areas to be the same thing as one another. You have been blocked previously for a very similar pattern of disruptive editing and it seems you did not learn your lesson from that.

Please read the section of the Disruptive Editing behavioural guideline I just linked to and consider your future behaviour carefully. WaggersTALK 13:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did provide valid responses as to why they should be considered the same, and the only reason I tried editing these pages myself was because no one else was willing to agree with me even after I provided completely valid responses to my argument. In short, the only reason my discussion has been closed is because no one feels that doing this is not worth it, which is rather ridiculous as people at Wikipedia should be willing to edit anything, no matter how small it may be. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a small change and there is very clear consensus against the changes you wish to make. "I tried editing these pages myself because no one else was willing to agree with me" is pretty much the very definition of disruptive editing. This is a community, and when the community disagrees with you, you have to accept it. If that's not something you can accept, then perhaps editing in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia isn't a good fit for you. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit I may have been disruptive with my edits, I am still outraged because the community disagreed with what I said even after I provided valid points to my argument, which I believe should be taken into account. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]