Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-12-27/In the media


 * Why is linking to the article prohibited but naming the outlet (allowing readers to find the article in seconds) allowed? Oversighting should be consistent here. Both or neither, but not one or the other. – Teratix ₵ 14:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently the oversight suppression has been reverted (leaving no trace, at least for non-admins.) and  are now visible in the edit history. Outing done by third parties in the course of journalism about Wikipedia aren't "badlinks" per WP:LINKLOVE. EllenCT (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the story under the clear threat of suppression. An earlier version was suppressed, but I view that as "technical" - I just didn't think they were serious. Can't include a link to the Washington Post? Say what - hillarious joke that. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess there is only one way to prove my point. He's the Washing Post link in question: How the reporter who found Mitt Romney’s secret Twitter has turned online sleuthing into a beat . Wake me up when you're done claiming censorship. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this from the other page where you asked the same question. The answer applies here as well. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-censorship because an authoritarian environment makes people uncomfortable speaking freely is definitely a form of censorship, often more effective than explicit censorship. It's especially effective when people like you then follow along claiming that nobody was actually censored and that if only Smallbones would consent to getting banned from Wikipedia we would see what actual censorship is like. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC) (Please let me know if this is misquoted) Or should I call out the oversighters and ask them directly - is it ok with you if we just go ahead in the next issue and have the discussion of the issue I had planned? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You chose not to include my reply to . Here it is: "Smallbones is being self-serving, not self-censoring. He wants to be able to cry "Censorship!" when there really is none. I have pointed out that the original Slate article has been linked at Talk:Pete Buttigieg since Deember 21st (and is still there). I have posted the link to the Washington Post article in this thread and it is still here. And an editor is appropriately adding links of media mentions on Talk:Pete Buttigieg. None of them have been "censored". I joined this discussion to say that I disagreed with the oversighting of the original link, so I am hardly advocating censorship, but it is good to see that your kneejerk reflexes are still working." Cheers. Bitter Oil (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (EC)When Wikipedians go around trying to eliminate every instance of the text "The Washington Post", that's when we'll know that Wikipedia has fallen into the trap - the false security - of relying on censorship to accomplish its goals. Thanks for the question. The Signpost has no intention of allowing itself to be censored. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC) (Editor-in-chief)
 * A range of revisions of the section from 21–22 December are still redacted (but edit summaries are still visible, so it's obvious what was discussed in these revisions). This is still redacted. Could an oversighter please clarify what is and isn't allowed to be discussed, because at the moment nothing is consistent. – Teratix ₵ 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are ongoing discussions at Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:Harassment czar  17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Double standards? A few weeks ago I asked if it is ok for Signpost (and Wikipedia in general) to link to a news article that does link to an outing hate page with death threats against editors and such, and the resulting ANI discussion seemed to have closed with most people saying 'not a problem'. So what's different in this case? I wonder if the difference is that the people outed on said page are not admins, but this time the person being outed is an admin (or has active admin friends)? Just a hypothesis (as I have zero knowledge of who might have been outed), but I wonder why this time such a swift and decisive action was taken. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read the articles at issue, there are two usernames involved, and neither one is an admin. One of the usernames hasn't made an edit in almost 10 years, and the other one made two edits this year, but previously hadn't made an edit in 5 years. Also interesting is that while the link to the article has been oversighted in some places, it hasn't been oversighted in other places. These points have been raised in the conversation at WT:Harassment. I agree that this situation has been handled differently from the one in the ANI post you link to, and I think this shows there's a "hole" in current policy that needs filling. – Levivich 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I find the "Myanmar Wikipedia" article incredibly confusing. AFAICT there is no such thing as a "Myanmar Wikipedia, which is written in the Myanmar, Mon and Shan languages", as we have one Wikipedia per language, and contrary to the article, Burmese, Mon and Shan Wikipedias have been given their own subdomains. The Mon Wikipedia was launched as recently as last month. The number of articles given matches that of the Burmese Wikipedia. What the hell is the article talking about? Nardog (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (who was quoted by name) czar  21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is the censorship of the Signpost?
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment about whether Wikipedia usernames identified by reliable sources constitute outing. As I have pointed out in that discussion (and directly to Smallbones), the original Slate story which sparked this has been linked from Talk:Pete Buttigieg since December 21st. I have linked the Washington Post article in that thread without it being oversighted or me being blocked. The claim of Signpost censorship simply does not hold water. This is a distraction from the policy issue under discussion. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See above quote - you are just repeating yourself. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I expressed my opinion about this before you published it. You chose to continue (as is your right) and I am expressing my reaction now that you have published. That's what the comment section is for. Bitter Oil (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , assuming your reference to talk:Pete Buttigieg is to the diff posted in the above section by, it is suppressed. EdChem (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Edited to correct user name and re-sign for ping to work. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe Bitter Oil is actually referring to this section in Talk:Pete Buttigieg. – Teratix ₵ 04:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok,, thanks – I guess it's something else that's been suppressed. EdChem (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)