Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

=Submission desk= Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief,. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Maintaining ru.WP in the face of a shortage of admins

 * Submission: Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Maintaining ru.WP in the face of a shortage of admins
 * Column:
 * Author:
 * Discussion: An article about how bots, technical and social tools helps several dozens of active users maintain 2 million articles on Russian Wikipedia. MBH (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support to publication. Pessimist (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * user:Smallbones, could you review this submission, as a current editor and a former EiC of The Signpost, and say something about could it be included to the next Signpost issue? MBH (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologise for nearly missing this. I think submissions are usually posted at the bottom, as this page can get quite disorganised. Which column do you think it should be in? I would suggest the Technology report; what are your thoughts? (I also have no say whether this story will be ran or not). Svampesky  ( talk ) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objections for "Technology report", it will be better if you (The Signpost editors) choose the column, because I don't know well what columns are in The Signpost. Also, I have used ruwiki's style of adding new themes to public discussions: all new themes are added from above in ruwiki. MBH (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Partly a technology report, partly a sister project report, partly an in-depth view of an editing process often overlooked -- I've put it at "in focus", may restructure this issue later. jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I just copyedited the draft further (now at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus). Looks great to me; a very interesting topic. Just one question about the following part:
 * LiftWing is actually the name for the WMF's entire machine learning infrastructure, which serves many different models. They have a separate list of these at Machine learning models - can you identify and link the newer model that is used in that bot?
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The NNs used by the bots are often kind of hard to figure out deets on. I suspect this is partly by design (they are anti-vandal nets after all) -- e.g. user:ClueBot NG doesn't say what model it uses at all, that I can tell. I will try and figure it out... jp×g🗯️ 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @HaeB "revertrisk-language-agnostic" and "revertrisk-multilang-(ru|uk)". Just like "damaging" score in ORES. MBH (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * About new pic: did you think many readers could understand a connection between this picture and an article text? Touhou isn't a popular franchise, I wouldn't mention user- and bot names in article at all. MBH (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been copyedited (I'm not a copyeditor, so I'm unsure if I'm allowed to make edits), perhaps wikilink in the caption to read 'Reimu, with spell cards, prepared to do battle.' Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, we mention the names of users involved in stuff -- it's easier for readers to track down discussions et cetera and find mor information on their own -- but I agree that a clarifying note may be useful. I could go either way on the image, frankly. jp×g</b>🗯️</b> 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, we mention the names of users involved in stuff -- it's easier for readers to track down discussions et cetera and find mor information on their own -- but I agree that a clarifying note may be useful. I could go either way on the image, frankly. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Submission
On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.
 * Submission: User:Schierbecker/Wikiality
 * Column: Humour
 * Author:
 * Discussion:
 * Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Submission

 * Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
 * Column: TDB
 * Author: OpenSexism
 * Discussion: This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Crossword 2

 * Submission: User:Cremastra/Crossword2
 * Column: Crossword
 * Author:
 * Discussion: Crossword proposal 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks good, probably do with being a bit bigger. If you wanna do that, epic, otherwise I will try and throw something together. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll expand it over the coming days. Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's about time we got another crossword! I was starting to think I would have to make it myself. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) Small Middle-Eastern country; associated Wikiproject was started in 2006.
 * This is ambiguous, could be Qatar, could be Yemen. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That happens a lot in off-wiki crosswords. In these cases, you can use the answers that intersect, which would in this case seem to indicate that they mean Qatar. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, but I never liked those ambiguous answers. I would suggest WP:QUICK as an alternative, or just a better/unambiguous clue. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At next issue, I will call this published. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject report with a focus on active Wiki Fixup Projects

 * Submission: User:Kazamzam/sandbox/Wiki Fixup Projects
 * Column: WikiProject report
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is about the efforts, obstacles, struggles, and successes of editors working on projects like WP:ORPHAN and WP:URA. Kazamzam (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kazamzam I'd be curious about what kind of events these projects work on, e.g. drives, and why do individuals affiliate with the projects, when many people engage in these activities uncoordinated? I like your focus/question on bots for example. Choosing multiple projects to profile is atypical, so clarity why you choose the projects you did, would make sense, for example why not copyrighters guild, NPP, AfC (other than fact they're active?) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kazamzam also check out the archive for past inspiration, specifically Article rescue squadron. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This looks like a good outline; if you'd like to flesh it out more I would be happy to run it. Let us know (here or at the Newsroom) if you'd like any support with anything. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia

 * Submission: User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia (moved to here)
 * Column: TDB
 * Author:
 * Discussion: I would like to write a piece analyzing the use of Wikipedia to spread anti-trans FRINGE viewpoints, particularly in medical articles. I'd note the Sexology case and Cantor's contributions in general as we're still cleaning up his mess a decade later. I have a bit of a draft of that on my computer from when I ended up on a research tangent while writing WP:NQP (the table on how we got to GENSEX). I'd like to tie it into other cases of weaponizing Wikipedia to promote anti-trans misinformation, such as User:A Wider Lens and general efforts by Genspect and co to subvert Wikipedia. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think chances of getting published will be higher if there is a written draft available to evaluate. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to give a heads up that there is now a written draft. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Novem Linguae, @JPxG I reworked the submission per discussion with @Bluerasberry in the Signpost Discord so now it focuses on WP:ARBSEX, the discussions of modern issues would be in part 2. I'm hoping it can go under Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Disinformation report. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , while the article (version I read) is largely focused on Cantor's wrongdoing and the view that it was not addressed enough in the 2013 Sexology arb case, it very much also gives the impression that Jokestress was treated unjustly (e.g. the Arbitration Committee let him get away with it...and more heavily sanctioned editors who tried to stop him.). Before the Signpost seems to go to bat for Jokestress, however, it is worth reviewing the evidence presented in that case, especially by those who are not Cantor or Jokestress. Aside from behavioral issues mentioned in the case, which I won't comment further on here, she seemed to have a POV on certain sexology matters that was itself WP:FRINGE, often in the opposite direction of Cantor's. The concept of paraphilias in general is completely mainstream in psychology and psychiatry, especially when it comes to those that motivate harm to others, but Jokestress' view is that "paraphilia" is an arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept, and she edited accordingly. And yes, this does extend to paraphilias that motivate harm, as laid out here here and here, with copious links to diffs and discussions. Please dig into it; what she said about certain of these paraphilias really is problematic. It extends far, far beyond skepticism of Cantor's and fellow-travelers' ideas about gender identity, which is totally okay and well within the mainstream to criticize. I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban this user was, or might have been, wrong.
 * On a different note, it also states (bolding mine), Some I've spoken to have suggested it belies a shift in what is WP:FRINGE: his views, while deeply offensive, were in vogue in 2008, or even 2013 during the sexology case. But reliable sources were clear, even then, that the majority of the LGBT community found those views offensive. Perhaps in 2008, his views were slightly more notable, but he was editing until 2021, when his work was considered FRINGE for a decade. These parts are absolutely crucial to the argument that Cantor should have been sanctioned far sooner than he was, but they are completely unsupported. I recognize that this is just a draft, though, so there might already have been intention to support it down the road. Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) struck and replaced mistaken link Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input, to start with I do want to clarify that James is only ~1/4 of the story by design, she's an important figure but not the main focus. With regards to treating her unjustly, I cannot help but draw the conclusion her editing had issues, but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this, and when ArbCom publicly ignored Cantor while giving her a TBAN on everything queer that could have easily been a proportionate "paraphilias and CAMH" TBAN they dropped the ball.
 * Regarding your point on it being FRINGE back then, when TMWBQ was published in 2004, the response from the LGBT community was overwhelmingly negative. The basic premise (there are 2 kinds of trans women: fetishists and really feminine gay guys) is kinda obviously fucking stupid/offensive. Academic critiques of Blanchard's typology abounded, a quick sample of 2008 to 2012 found this in 2008, some in 2010, 2011, and 2012 - almost every academic piece supporting it was from Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, or Cantor.
 * Regarding the examples you gave for James' behavior:
 * In the first link, she provided sources to that effect - noting that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia does seem relevant to the article. The current definition of paraphilia, AFAICT, does not require harm to others, or even oneself. What is sexually normal and abnormal is obviously in no small part a socio-political / sociological question.
 * Since you only linked to Flyers evidence, I'll go over hers first. AFAICT James' argument weren't fringe, it was that the pedophilia article should reflect both the psychiatric definition and the history of the term and practice, and she was being WP:POINTY about it reflecting only the former and Cantor's role in that. Flyer refers to the discussion above and some other pointy ones.
 * MrADHD seems to refer to her arguments for acknowledging sociology/history as fringe
 * MVBW does not mention of James' edits. He tries to frame James' concerns about pathologization as FRINGE, and refers to transgendermap.com as an attack site for having lists of 1) Bailey's loudest public supporters and 2) those who publicly advocate pathologizing views of trans people. 1) this site was archived by the library of congress as important to LGBT history and 2) is trusted by the SPLC
 * WLU's does raise points, and James should have assumed better faith, but I am reminded of the society for following paranoiacs - Cantor repeatedly tried to put the article in there (mentioned in the signpost piece), an article which received its fair share of criticism - it's understandable if not regrettable and a problem she's touchy about it.
 * TLDR: By analogy, if somebody is recreationally drop kicking toddlers in a park for years, and somebody starts running around shaking people and setting off fireworks and saying "why don't we do something", and constantly tries to stop the baby-kicker, and ends up banned from the park instead of the baby-kicking dude, that was an unjust and wild decision. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One of my links was supposed to be to MrADHD's evidence; I have struck and replaced it.
 * but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this - I strongly disagree; I think they are two very different people who were each deeply problematic in their own idiosyncratic ways. Cantor supported the Blanchard typology and Jokestress didn't, yes; but (since I have to get more specific now) Jokestress argued, for example, that pedophilia being described as a disorder is reification and a NPOV violation, that pedophilia is an "iatrogenic artifact" (meaning the harm is caused by the medical system) and equated it to now-rejected disorders , and stated the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy is based on moral panic and invited people to try to get the policy reviewed and to make no mention of "if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject" (but still inviting such people) . I encourage anyone to read these diffs, and others from the case, in full. Neither of the stars of this sorry saga are 'saints'.
 * The Signpost should tread carefully in how this history is depicted; at minimum I would hope that (if accepted) this article at least acknowledges even if vaguely that there were issues back then besides just transphobia. Crossroads -talk- 07:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Before we go over James' views on pedophilia, let's quickly look at Cantor's: we are talking about somebody who's whole shtick is that Pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation tied to neurobiology- see his comments on "LGBTP", his work with the Prostasia foundation that supported terms like MAP and campaigned for child sex dolls, his starring in I, Pedophile (article written by him), and support of Virtuous Pedophiles (article also written by him). Note how for the latter, some were perhaps not so virtuous. Like, if we're bringing up views on pedophilia, Cantor's pretty sus. Fitting for a proponent of AGP/HSTS, his research on this supposed "orientation" only extends to men, and he leaves women out of his schema.
 * Now, I am not an expert in this topic - but I will say I'm suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation. If we accept it's true however, that a subset of the populaton is inalterably and permanently attracted to pre-pubescent/pubescent children due to a brain abnormality - that doesn't explain the practice outside that disorder. Sociologically and even psychologically speaking there are different explanations for pedophilic behavior than "chomos brains are just wired that way". Linguistically, there are other definitions. Even Cantor agreed in those articles, he just wanted the article focusing on the definition he helped create.
 * James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice (ie, what people mean when they say pedophilia), even Cantor in those archives was agreeing that CSA was not limited to those he'd diagnose with pedophilia. You selectively quote those diffs - "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it, you ignore her calling it iatrogenic is followed by explaining its the medicalization of a social problem and her comment that not only Cantor's definition of pedophilia should be covered in the article, and in that last link she's complaining about being pedo-jacketed for trying to bring neutrality to the article. I must confess, it's kinda funny to see James and not Cantor stepping up for self-identified non-offending pedophiles considering that's Cantor's job - I'm almost wondering if it's another case of very bad taste satire.
 * Sidenote: when reviewing the case and reading the pedophilia article I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one.
 * I said James' was WP:POINTY and disruptive, but you are ignoring three things 1) she was banned from all queer topics in addition to such discussions; 2) Cantor was not banned from either; and 3) the DS were about trans stuff, then sexology, then hebephilia (all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)). On trans topics, she was absolutely a relative saint. On pedophilia, she does not seem to me to be the FRINGE activist she was said to be and there did seem to be issues with the article prioritizing the diagnosis.
 * TLDR: Cantor seems to have fought to have the pedophilia article reflect only the diagnosis and his idea that pedophilia is a neuroanatomical condition and no other definitions or historical sociological discussion, James was WP:POINTY and could not let it go that was the case but ffs points she was making were sociology 101 though you've very selectively quoted out of context - the arbcom case itself was kicked off by more than that article. I'm not devoting much space to it in the signpost piece because 1) it's already long and that's not the main focus and 2) from the data I have, the thesis of that would be Cantor helped Wikipedia normalize pedophilia, the concept of the "virtuous innate pedophile", and promoted himself and his friends (I just checked and pedophilia cites him ~17 times) - in much the same way he dominated wikipedia with his and his friends views of trans people, he did the same with pedos and downplayed criticisms of his medical model.
 * If anybody wants to quote any of this out of context, refer here: I have taught chomos physical lessons on the errors of their ways, am still dealing with trauma from my own fucked up 14th year on this planet I'm not about to share (but y'all can probably guess), and have no tolerance for pedos - I think Cantor seems to have used WP to normalize pedos and promote his own views on them, and it looks like some editors tried to pedo-jacket James for noting that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation - keep in mind that "innate" and "sexual orientation" are two very distinct claims. That it is at least partially innate (like other brain/mental disorders) is, as far as I can tell, mainstream, but the idea it is a sexual orientation is very much not. (Whether pedophilia is alterable or not is a separate, 3rd matter.) I agree with you that e.g. Cantor's comments about pedophilia as a sexual orientation and "LGBTP" are fringe.
 * James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice - I feel that you are (probably unintentionally) steelmanning her here and in what follows - attributing to her a more reasonable position than was actually evident. She was not just arguing for more sociological perspectives; her view seemed to be that all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, and she openly edited accordingly. It's one thing to oppose the medicalization of being transgender or of harmless consensual fetishes; it's quite another to extend this to when people's primary sexual interest involves seeking out partners who cannot consent. Those forms of sexuality really are pathological, and arguing and editing otherwise is pro-fringe. I rest my case on this as the diffs and discussions above are sufficient.
 * I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one - no, this would not have worked. This is similar to what was actually done back then (but with a longer title for the one "about the practice"); it ended up deleted at AfD for being a WP:POV fork.
 * you are ignoring three things - those just weren't really germane to what I feel are my main points. FWIW, in hindsight, at this point I think it would have been best if the both of them were topic banned from sexuality and gender years before the arb case. If 2024 Wikipedia norms were fully formed back then I bet that would have actually happened, too - the overall approach of being so openly "my particular ideas are correct and the article should reflect them" rather than "here's what seems to fairly reflect the academic consensus" from the both of them is too obvious. But back then was closer to early Wikipedia and its very laissez-faire approach to "anyone can edit", when POV pushers and cranks of every stripe ran rampant.
 * I'm sorry to hear about the trauma you have experienced. Crossroads -talk- 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So we've established Cantor had fringe views on pedophilia that went beyond the medical literature.
 * Those forms of sexuality really are pathological - I think this is the crux of the dispute: you can say it's immoral, abnormal, etc, without saying it's per se a pathology. One can disagree with framing it as an inherently medical problem without being FRINGE. Murder, racism, beating children, etc, are all obviously bad and immoral behaviors but not medical ones. Same for wanting to murder someone, wanting to beat a child, or thinking racist things while being civil. One can say the same for fucking children or the desire to, obviously awful, not necessarily a medical condition.
 * With regards to all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, paraphilias are recurring or intense sexual arousal to atypical  objects, places, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals and the paraphilia article is largely about the controversy over what is and isn't "atypical". AFAICT, the DSM-5 atm defines paraphilias as the scientific term for kink and notes they're not inherently pathological, with them specifying "paraphilic disorders" are when "your kink causes problems".
 * Regarding that idea and content fork, I had indeed come across it before, and only read about half because of it's length. Still, there was support for keeping or merging material and the close noted Some of the content may be suitable for adding to other article(s). I'd spoken in haste, the real solution would have been the pedophilia article including all the definitions.
 * I feel they are germane, your argument is that James wasn't treated unjustly, mine is she was because the scope of the ban (everything queer) was disproportionate to the issue (her interactions with / reactions to Cantor) and by neglecting to sanction Cantor for his fringe views in any topic they vindicated his misbehavior and views in the eyes of the community. I take the view that if Cantor had been banned years before, James' would not have been driven insane by his presence and advocacy here.
 * And thank you, I just put that bolded disclaimer there because I don't want to end up accused of promoting a "sex-with-children-normalization point of view" for saying "pedophilia is awful and immoral, but not necessarily a medical condition". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait, so ... admittedly I haven't followed all the details above and in the current draft (or its many references), so feel free to set me straight. But it's a bit concerning to see that we are apparently seriously discussing which of two problem editors (one permabanned for sockpuppeting, one permabanned from the topic area at hand) the Signpost should portray as a pedophilia apologist and which as unjustly sanctioned by the community? In many news publications, the former would mark a moment where the managing editor takes the writer aside and says something like "great work, but we really need to run this by our legal team before we can publish it".
 * To be clear, I'm not saying that we should be overly concerned about extreme interpretations of BLP and such, if we are fully sure that we can stand behind every statement and conclusion (or attribute it to other sources at least). Also, this is not about the article's harsh criticism of ArbCom (ArbCom will survive that and the Signpost has published controversial opinions before). I'm just saying that JPxG or whoever is going to make the call to publish it in this issue should make extra sure that if someone covered in the piece with their real name feels inclined to take legal action (or file a complaint arguing that some of the text is a UCoC violation), we can justify every sentence if needed and have nothing to regret. And if, after giving the text a fair review, that Signpost team member is still unsure about that, they should feel empowered to postpone or reject this submission.
 * YFNS, like Crossroads I am very sorry to hear about the trauma that was inflicted on you, and I sincerely hope you are in a much better place now. It also seems that you have taken the lessons from your own former topic ban and have so far adhered to the remaining restrictions imposed when that ban was lifted (e.g. is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed). You clearly have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. As for physical lessons however: While nobody here can judge you for whatever you are alluding to (by the way, for others here who like me were not familiar with the term: chomo), I can't help noticing that this may describe another type of situation where one can get very easily get into legal trouble even if most people would agree that one is morally and ethically in the right.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Commenting as someone who copy-edited the piece, I will chime in that I too am rather uncomfortable in The Signpost 'taking a side', if you will, in such highly contentious topics with where both editors clearly were far from saints. A "Yes X was bad, but at least X wasn't as bad as Y" is not an argument I ever liked because it excuses/justifies bad behaviour because there is worst behaviour. I'll also note the huge BLP implications, not just on IRL people but also on active editors that have steered clear of blocks for years. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @HaeB I want to clarify that the article very deliberately avoids going into the weeds on James and Cantors editing on pedophilia, focusing on the anti-trans quackery aspect. Crossroads came to argue that I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban [Andrea James] was, or might have been, wrong because James's views on pedophilia were FRINGE, and I should further elaborate on those. I countered that they weren't FRINGE, and if we were mentioning views on pedophilia, I'd mention the multiple pedophilia-related-articles Cantor edited with COIs and what FRINGE views RS say he has publicly advocated (such as that "P" should be added to "LGBT" or that hyper-realistic child sex dolls are a victimless crime or his position on the advisory council for the Prostasia foundation, which pushes the term "minor-attracted person" ) The discussion between me and Crossroads above is about all the stuff that's not going in the article, rather than a discussion of it's contents.
 * Thank you for the kind words and advice. I kinda wish I hadn't mentioned that night (which, for the record, was unrelated to the physical lessons and not quite so large an age gap as to constitute pedophilia on their part) - but I did because from what I saw in the archives some editors tried very hard to pedo-jacket James for not agreeing with Cantor's takes on pedophilia, so I wanted to pre-emptively address just how little time I would have for anybody who tried to do the same to me and why. And by "physical lessons", that could mean a lot lol. Art therapy or some shit hypothetically - notwithstanding Occam's razor it's up for interpretation :)
 * That all being clarified - I've got a request for you and @Headbomb if you're open to it. Me and Bluerasberry went over the article a few times to make sure the claims/refs lined up, and I floated it by a few friends to review and took their concerns into account too, so I think it's airtight now. However, the more eyes critically examining before publication the better - so I'd appreciate if you two could give any amount of time to reviewing it and the sourcing and make sure everything lines up! Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been busy the last few days and have not been able to devote a proper amount of time to being actively involved in the review and revision process for some of the stuff in this issue, specifically this piece, so I will start by apologizing for that.
 * I read through this with great trepidation, because unlike most newspapers we are essentially required to give all of our drafts and revisions and feedback as permanent indelible public diffs -- I am sure that whatever I say in this comment it will result in some manner of Cool Kids Crew accusing me publicly of being a whatever, maybe here or maybe on another site. Well, whatever: I have to publish the paper, I have to make it be good, and I have to make it not be bad, and this matters more than my feelings, so if some guy reads this comment and gets mad at me for being woke, or for being a chud, or whatever (both have happened before), or if I get an ANI thread or an ArbCom case request against me as a result of saying this, then I guess that is the price of freedom, but at least I acted freely.
 * Okay, well, time to be serious: I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of publishing this draft. I have not gotten through the quite-large volume of the documents referenced (e.g. all of the proceedings for the arb case, including a secondary large volume of documents referenced by the statements made there, etc). However, what I've noticed so far is that the case seems to be a total zoo -- at least according to all of the actual evidence that I see, both Cantor and James were acting very badly, both of them were playing fast and loose with representing their own opinions as expert consensus, and so on.
 * Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career. The department for the piece is "Disinformation report", it's got a high resolution picture of him as the lead image, and it's got "Anti-trans advocacy on Wikipedia" in big text right over that picture. I think this is too much of an argumentative piece for the Signpost to run, especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that). If you want to post this in your own userspace as an essay, that would be entirely reasonable, but I don't think we can include it as journalism, even as a publication that makes much space available for opinion writing. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, life can get busy lol.
 * I've been accused of ridiculous things before as well, c'est la cost of editing Wikipedia. I've got nothing against you and fwiw would defend you from such silly remarks. And why would you get dragged to ARBCOM - I'm the one saying they made an awful decision that screwed over the encyclopedia :p
 * WRT their own opinions, AFAICT James's POV pushing at pedophilia seems to be a reaction to Cantor's there, but on the issue of human sexuality/gender identity Cantor's by far the worse offender - and he got away with no real sanction. James got banned, and practically stopped editing entirely. Her story on wikipedia ends there. But the story is Cantor didn't - he got another 8 years because ARBCOM looked away - he was promoting FRINGE views here with the stated intent of manipulating the media as he was being paid by the Alliance Defending Freedom to promote them in courts.
 * WRT portraying Cantor in a negative light, it's hard to paint him in a positive one. He edited with COIs, pushed FRINGE theories, legitimized them through Wikipedia, and was socking almost the whole time. a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career - he made 8000 edits, I covered just some of the highlights (I discovered multiple more COIs investigating - particularly targeting sexologists who disagreed with him). If you think there's a way to put a positive spin on that, or balance it out, I'm all ears.
 * Additionally, I do want to note RS already frequently note he advocates anti-trans quackery and laws. The fact he is an anti-trans advocate is not news, the fact he used Wikipedia to do so, and got away with it, is.
 * especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that) - I'm not sure where you got "ongoing dispute" or "a heavily involved party" from, I joined WP after he was already banned, I learned about him researching the history of GENSEX, and a few months ago I deleted a POVFORK he wrote Articles for deletion/Feminine essence concept of transsexuality (8 to delete, 1 to merge, 1 to keep who encouraged him to write it in the first place). If you'd like me to move that up somewhere (breaking chronological ordering), I can, but I think you're reading a lot into a single AFD of an obvious POVFORK.
 * I respect you don't think the Signpost can publish it, but I'd like to know how the piece can be improved so it can be worthy of publishing and what specific issues you'd want to see addressed. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See further discussion here and here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Submission
I have written a review of Stephen Harrisons new book "The Editors" and would like to submit for publication here in The Signpost. This is my first attempt to submit to the newsletter and if I am doing this incorrectly I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Submission:
 * Column: Book review
 * Author:
 * Discussion:


 * @Sgerbic. Do you have a link to the draft that you'd like to include here? – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I have it saved in a word doc, can I email it to someone? Sgerbic (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A good spot for it might be your userspace. You can create any page you want if you prefix it with User:Sgerbic/. So for example, User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors. See above for more examples :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Post soon if you want review for the next issue. Otherwise no big deal, can go into following issue.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm traveling for a few more days and then I will when I get to my computer.Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made the User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors live. Now what happens? Sgerbic (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a valuable topic for the Signpost. Looking forward to reading the review!
 * Note that the book is not published yet ("Available August 6th" according to this post by the author, which btw also has some interesting background about the book's genesis that might be worth mentioning).
 * I know that pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish this review only when the book is actually available to the public. In any case, you might want to disclose that the review is based on an advance copy.
 * By the way, the "Editorial Reviews" section of the book's Amazon page and the author's own website already highlight a blurb attributed to the Signpost:
 * It appears that this quote is taken from a brief note that Smallbones wrote three and a half years ago in Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media, referring an earlier work-in-progress version of the book (then tentatively titled "Infodemic", with Five sample chapters [having been] available here).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Updated blurb attribution HaeB (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good and has potential, may be condign to run this alongside the release of the book as HaeB says. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI - I am finished fussing with my article and have uploaded a photo of me and my reading helpers to WikiMediaCommons if you want to use it with The Signpost. Thanks all. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI - I am finished fussing with my article and have uploaded a photo of me and my reading helpers to WikiMediaCommons if you want to use it with The Signpost. Thanks all. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation Report Take 2
The piece was previously discussed above under Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia - the premise is an investigation into James Cantor, who's been making headlines for FRINGE anti-trans advocacy in the last few months and edited trans topics on Wikipedia for a decade. I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions and hope it's not too late to go into this week's issue - my apologies for the lateness I bricked my computer Wednesday morning and it took me 36 hours to fix it. I think the piece has been significantly improved by the feedback I received and I can make any additional improvements necessary! Thanks and best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Submission: Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report
 * Column: Disinformation Report
 * Author:
 * Discussion:


 * @Courcelles - I see you haven't been active in a hot minute, I hope this ping finds you well! Personally, it's a coin-flip for me whether extended wiki-breaks are due to good things going on IRL or extra stress there, so I hope it's the former in your case. I'm pinging you because another former arb weighed in on this piece and I'd like your input for it since AFAICT you were the leading arb proposing sanctions for Cantor.
 * Do you believe the committee erred in how it handled Cantor? If so, how/why did it err?
 * Do you believe it speaks to broader issues with systemic bias and/or queerphobia on Wikipedia?
 * Do you believe there are measures the community/committee can take to prevent such abuse in the future?
 * No worries if you don't want to comment (but I'd appreciate a heads up so I know not to wait on it lol). Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The person had a Wikipedia article and was notable. What is to say that the editor was a random person using his name? On Talk:James Cantor, there is a banner at the top which reads: The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject. Your piece says that User:James Cantor is James Cantor as a lesser known fact. Wouldn't it have been counterproductive for him to edit under his name and push his views? (cc: @JPxG). Svampesky ( talk ) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)  He confirmed it was him in an interview, my bad. Svampesky ( talk ) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Continued support I supported the previous submission titled "Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia" and I support this one as well. I have made more than 50 editorial suggestions to this draft over a few years, and YFNS has both incorporated my suggestions and worked through the meaning of them. Time spent does not equal merit to publish, but this has my personal support. I give that support in part because I especially call for LGBT+ related submissions through WikiProject LGBT+ and Wikimedia LGBT+, where I am active.
 * I get that this piece is loaded with surprising takes but I confirm the premises that I note. These include that Cantor as expert paid presenter on anti-trans ideology was active as a Wikipedia editor in promoting that ideology, and that he violated basic wiki editing norms including by using sockpuppets, and that sources indicate that his testimony had impact in the media environment to give scientific credence to anti-trans perspectives. I also recognize that in this case, ArbCom became a gatekeeper in ruling how Wikipedia included this info, and I agree with YFNS that something about the relationship between ArbCom and contentious information is systemically over-focused on escalating conduct as the key issue when here, the result was Wikipedia's overall promotion of anti-trans content.
 * My longer term hope for this piece is that it opens our editorial and content review processes more.
 * There are so many claims here that the overall piece is challenging to address, so again, I am personally backing it if anyone returns wanting a particular Signpost contributor to take responsibility and blame. That said, Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and neither I nor anyone else can catch all the challenges in a work like this, and I hope that after we find a path to publishing this in some form, more editors propose better ways to explain that case, ArbCom, and the extremely fast-changing social trends in global conversations on gender.
 * If any other editors have demands or requests for getting this article in better shape for the Signpost to publish then I will work through those requests with YFNS. Thanks for considering.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Report: The Big Ones

 * Submission: —
 * Column: WikiProject Report
 * Author:
 * Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.
 * I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Wikipedia. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Database reports/WikiProject watchers is one measure of the biggest. WikiProject Contents and WikiProject Spam are not so well known. Besides the ones you named,WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Mathematics, and WikiProject LGBT studies have their influence.
 * Among all of these, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

 * Submission: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter
 * Column: TDB
 * Author: Board of Trustees, shared by Natalia Tymkiv
 * Discussion: Results of the vote on the Charter, the resolution, meeting minutes, and proposed next step shared by Natalia Tymkiv on July 11. AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Submission Trump raised-fist photo

 * Submission: User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump raised fist photo
 * Column: Discussion report
 * Author:
 * Discussion: I've finished it, just doing minor tweaks with formatting. Special:Diff/1235720801 A bot removed the image, how should I proceed? Svampesky  ( talk ) 21:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, per WP:NFCC, nonfree images are only allowed in mainspace (which is what the bot is enforcing here), and time is running a bit short for launching an RfC about adding Signpost stories to the exemptions mentioned there ;)
 * So you will probably need to make do with a link to the image instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)