News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

👁 Image
Administrator changes

👁 added

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

👁 readded

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

👁 removed

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

👁 Image
Bureaucrat changes

👁 removed

• WereSpielChequers

👁 Image
Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

👁 Image
Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

👁 Image
Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

👁 Image
Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

Following a request to the Committee, the checkuser and oversight permissions of Giraffer ( · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, June 2026 (2)

I know this is almost 5-months belated, but if this is the right place to ask,^[a] then did you mean to keep autoblock disabled when revoking TPA from ToadetteEdit? The banning policy says that site-bans prohibit editors from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances, and disabling autoblock, of course, allows Toadette to edit via a temporary account.

I was hesitant to mention this per WP:AINTBROKE,^[b] but since the banning policy eplicitly states that site-bans prohibit users from editing regardless of if they are logged in or not, I figured that it might be worthwhile to suggest enabling autoblock as a precautionary measure. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 03:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) It might have been best to not bring this up publically per WP:BEANS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[]

You are right about that; does linking to a user's contributions ping that user? If not, then I hopefully didn't ping Toadette, and thus the crisis should be averted, but if so, then I accept responsibility for not considering WP:BEANS at all.

Either way, of all the things that probably shouldn't be brought up publically, this is one of the least-bad cases, especially if disruption hasn't already been caused by a possible TA. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 03:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I was reinstating prior block conditions, that was all. I don't know if autoblock was intentionally disabled or not; all I did was tick the revoke talk page access button. Giraffer () 21:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Oh, I know, that is why I pinged @The Bushranger, who first enacted the ban. I originally started this thread to ask either you (as the most recent admin to change block settings for TE) or The Bushranger (who first enacted the C-ban) to enable autoblock if autoblock had been disabled by mistake, or if autoblock was intentionally disabled, let me know.

Then again, if there is no problem, then enabling autoblock isn't a big deal, and thus no reason to rush or worry about it, although enabling autoblock could serve as a precautionary measure in line with the banning policy, as I said above. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 21:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[]

@BlueEleephant: I don't think that linking contributions causes a ping, but I'm not sure it doesn't, but either way...the reason I disabled autoblock was because autoblock can, in some cases, cause issues. I think it's usually with pblocks that it can/does, but since this was a community ban instead of an "immediate conduct" issue, and there didn't seen to be much threat of sockpuppetry, I felt that having it enabled wasn't necessary in this case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[]