Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

The Signpost currently has articles, issues, and  pages ( talk and  non-talk). Current issue:  · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk ( create )

Previous issue:  · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

  

WikiConference report
With publication soon (?) I just noticed that the gallery in the WikiConference report includes an image of a community banned editor. Maybe this should be removed? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User is community banned in five Wikimedia projects. A week ago the user was found not guilty for purposes of global ban.
 * meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)
 * User was not WMF banned as stated in the removal diff at special:diff/1220698473
 * The user and case are complicated but they were welcome to the conference. I am fine with anyone's decision to edit the gallery.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Damn, I wish I'd known about that discussion on Meta, I would have contributed my observations that they multi-voted using at least four socks in one of our elections. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for next issue
Just so I don't forget, a few days ago I went through the "Suggestions" section to collect some news that went over our heads:

- This study on under-representation and mischaracterization of Black and/or female figures on Wikipedia (suggested by Gråbergs Gråa Sång; will likely feature in "Recent Research", so I'm going to flag it to @HaeB);

- The joint statement on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip by several Wikimedia organizations and volunteers, which is currently the subject of a pretty lengthy and fiery discussion (suggested by Another Believer);

- The recent death of Ukrainian Wikipedian Yuri Lushchai, who reportedly fell victim of the current war in Ukraine on March 28 (suggested by Avessa and Oleg Yunakov; probably needs further verification);

- Also on March 28, the WMF's introduction as an Associate Member of the Unicode Consortium (suggested by Arcorann).

I hope these are useful for the next issue, and let me know if there are any mistakes! Oltrepier (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've just found out that Chris Albon (the WMF's Director of Machine Learning) was recently interviewed by an Italian portal! Does it sound interesting enough for "In the Media"? Oltrepier (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I've managed to sneak a couple of blurbs into the ITN column, and flagged the study I mentioned to HaeB.


 * I could write a short obituary about Lushchai, but like I wrote before, I think we should do a double-check on those news, just to be sure, and look for some more details about his activity on Wikipedia.


 * For me, the biggest matter is still the Joint Statement on Palestine — which, by the way, has just survived a request for deletion. Considering the Maher situation, and the fact that the N&N section is pretty crowded already, how do you think we should move in this case?
 * [P.S. We could open a whole separate discussion for this last topic, if needed.] Oltrepier (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in here since this was specifically brought to my attention. I'm going to steer clear of the Joint Statement thing, I can feel my blood pressure rising just reading the title and I know I'm not anywhere near objective on this subject.
 * I think we could use more discussion of how the Foundation is applying ML, and especially in what way it will be visible to the community. Are AI assisted editing platforms anywhere on the horizon, for example to do research on under-construction articles. That would be neat, but I expect it's more about internal metrics and other business-y things of that ilk. I have some technical knowledge in this area and could perhaps contribute. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (continued) Skimmed the Albon interview and it was super lite. You're welcome to take that on, but I don't see a lot of substance there to talk about. He mentioned that the community has ben developing tools in this area for a while, I presume he's talking about WP:ORES but here's the rub. I challenge anybody not familiar with it to find the ORES "article quality" score for any randomly selected article. It's virtually impossible for someone not familiar with its existence. The Foundation needs to be more decisive about how to expose this, let alone more ambitious integration like I described briefly above. IMHO what this is about, is a really under-featured environment for content contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One more thing, I hope this isn't a repeat of something I said before (I looked and couldn't find it). There was a really interesting discussion in 2020 around just one example of what AI tools could do, as either a force for good, or evil, in locating bad actors. Of course had an insightful comment, which I will try to summarize in my own words: The problem with ML tools isn't one of dreaming up useful tools, it's reimagining our whole relationship to the tech, and to each other, and having some leadership around how to approach this from a foundational perspective. That's lowercase f foundational at the end. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bri Yeah, in the end I've just opted for quickly mentioning the Albon interview in the In the Media column, and we'll probably leave it at that...
 * I have absolutely zero experience with the subject, so your perspective looks very interesting! Oltrepier (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Vote for UCCCC ends 9 May; publication 11 May
I drafted a story at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes about the election for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election ending 9 May. This is a major election.

This is a major election following one of the most complicated development processes in Wikimedia Movement history. The timeline was just posted 5 April, which I find inconvenient and too short of notice for a process which requires high voter participation and a new organization which is likely to consume US$100,000s of thousands of dollars of resources before the next election.

I wish we could report the election before it is over but more than that, I wish elections were disallowed without confirming a schedule and giving notice.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I requested an extension of the voting timeline so that we would have time to report it.
 * meta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024
 *  Bluerasberry  (talk)  18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No extension.
 * Other elections to announce
 * Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election - meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024 schedule was posted a couple of days ago, starts 8 May
 * Ratification of the Movement Charter - meta:Movement_Charter schedule just posted a couple of days ago, election in June
 * I am a bit uncomfortable that these elections, which are designed to seat the decision makers for the direction of hundreds of millions of dollars, are just now scheduled. Also considering the stakes, there is not much communication plan in place.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  13:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

20:7 Special report
The 2024 RfA reform changes seem like they may be out of scope for the regular News and notes column. Describing how we got here and all of the Phase I tweaks and major changes — starting with admin elections, I think — might merit its own special page. What do Newsroom folks think? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bri I was about to write a short recap for it, actually!
 * Sounds good to me if we're going to mark it as a "Special report" of sorts, since the News and Notes column has already several articles locked in and might become too bloated otherwise.
 * Speaking of News and notes, check my previous message, please... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, you might want to go check Wikipedia Signpost/Series/RfA reform for examples of how we handled it before; at least one of those pieces had the page title "RFA reform" but many did not. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bri Thank you, that will definitely be useful! Oltrepier (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just wanted to let you all know that I've finally finished my article, and it's now ready for copyediting! Oltrepier (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, I've just realized that I forgot to add a pic to the article...
 * Have you got any interesting suggestions that might fit in (either in the Commons catalogue or AI-generated)? Oltrepier (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a likely bug in the Newsroom
Is it me, or does the Newsroom's table cite the "Special report" column twice? It must be a graphical bug... Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed it for now, but if the table is auto-regenerated after publication, we should fix the underlying problem, probably with a template or a script. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bri Fine, thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The way the table's generated is by keeping an automatic list of all the regular columns, then doing a database query to get everything else out of that name space that isn't included in the initial list. It shouldn't be double-including stuff, I'll take a look. jp×g🗯️ 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pitch: story on WikiCite and the upcoming Wikidata graph split
I wrote an op-ed about the imminent split of Wikidata to separate d:Wikidata:WikiCite content into a new Wikibase instance, and being the start of Wikidata federation. This is a rushed development from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is good that they are committing to support WikiCite, but it is chaotic to be under pressure to take action.

The reason this is news is that that they called for comment at d:Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/WDQS_graph_split/WDQS_Split_Refinement

Disclosure: I am a data scientist who develops WikiCite, sometimes with sponsorship, but not for some years I think. I must be the most expert person available to write this. I am still working on the draft but wanted to share the idea sooner.


 * User:Bluerasberry/signpost_wikicite

I do not think this requires so much review, but if anyone has questions, ask. Can we move this into the next issue?  Bluerasberry  (talk)  18:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bri @JPxG @HaeB @Smallbones How do you feel about this? Oltrepier (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was preparing a response and my computer glitched and ate it (ah the joys of HTML form editing). Now I'm kind of peeved and don't want to type it all back in. I'd say yes, it should go in the issue, but it was hard for me to read and could use a sharper op-ed framing. Maybe Bluerasberry was trying to stay away from this for one reason or another related to Wikipedian in Residence status.
 * The central problem with reading, especially for a lay (non-IT fluent) person, it's going to be very hard to figure out what the editorial "ask" is. Is it a pitch for funding? A pitch for more direction on tech? More community involvement in tech funding-related questions? I think the thesis might be there in the final paragraph -- it's hard to get non-technical people to direct a technically oriented solution. But maybe we're kind of compounding the problem with a lengthy hard to read piece on the technical heart of the issue.
 * So, in summary, maybe Bluerasberry needs a clear green light to make this a personal perspective. It could be a full-on op-ed on the decisions that made Wikidata inefficient for the Wikicite tool, and ways forward. Or else, we dial it back into a dry but concise framing of the technical issue with Wikidata, which I think is a scaling issue with a system that's being pushed beyond its intended limits, or (same thing really) beyond the combination of architecture choices and and computing resources devoted to the assumed uses. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me consider more. It is not a pitch for funding. It is a pitch for direction in tech and community involvement.
 * I think the story is that Wikidata may need 10 million dollars to grow. Medium-sized data uploads, small by many standards, were halted in 2017. I do not think it could be fixed before 2030. It is really had to figure out. Let me think more.
 * The personal part is that although the data halting has affected 100s of people, I have a university project which has probed more deeply at the nature of the problem. My inability to upload data is my issue, but also, there is no room for other datasets of similar size. Let me think more.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarifying, I didn't think it was a pitch for funding. But a naive reader could have seen the headline and the author, and made an assumption. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I shared this article with the Wikimedia Foundation team who are organizing the graph split. I incorporated their comments and they supported my submission.
 * I may make further changes in response to comments if I get them before publication, but I would like to submit this for the next issue as an editorial.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

But what article name?
I moved this to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed but probably maybe it isn't an op-ed. "Special report" is already taken for this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

20:7 In the media
Hello! I'm committing to finish the blurb on the SVT's report on Ruviki and ru.wiki as soon as possible, and I'll take care of the brief blurbs, as well. However, I don't feel I'm familiar enough with what's going on over at the French Wikipedia (the story originally flagged by @Bluerasberry)... Is anyone able to help on that front? Oltrepier (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, my article is now ready for copy-editing!
 * Sadly, I'm afraid I can't help much more for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks quite good, and should be enough to go off. I do not know what's going on at the French Wikipedia either; I will make a go at spinning something out from the links we have there. jp×g🗯️ 00:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I posted the French story.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Piccy
I started to take a crack at AI generated images for the issue, then quickly realized I could get in hot water. However didn't want to waste the effort, maybe someone will be inspired to try something else. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

20:7 News and notes
I also wanted to remind that the lead stories about the annual reports by Wikipedia/WMF and the OWID gadget still have to be developed... I can help with them, too, if needed! Oltrepier (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems like there may be a lot to get through. Nevertheless, I will give it a shot. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I won't be able to work on it, I just wanted to mention that the lead story about the WMF's annual report should be the only thing missing in this column before it's finally ready! Oltrepier (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPxG Have now filled in the section on the WMF and Endowment reports. Andreas JN 466 17:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There has been a global ban of a fr-WP and Commons admin with more than a million edits. Looks like some info as to why is available here. Probably worth a blurb. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 15:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb Honestly, I don't know if we'll be able to sneak it in this time, but surely it will be an interesting feat for the next issue! Oltrepier (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It'll be stale news by next issue, but up to you. It probably only needs a sentence or maybe two. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb I noticed that @Bri added a quick mention about the ban to N&N, so it should be all good now. Anyway, thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the French admin board you link, he was first blocked for six months and then indeffed because he made a death threat off-wiki. Andreas JN 466 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like we still don't have coverage of the OWID gadget situation, so I'll try to add a brief note within the new 3 hours (unless you happen to have something written up offline already, JPxG).
 * For context, the gadget was covered in the last issue already (and coincidentally or not, the WMF announcement came a day after we published). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

20:7 Arbitration report
There will be one from me. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am about four thousand words deep, but it's currently 5am. I will be on tomorrow. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see it was started. Looking forward to what comes next. By the way I stepped in as the regular contributor for that feature for a while, I think it was late 2017–2020. It took a lot of time to carefully review and follow the cases, then even more to write up a concise summary for what could often be voluminous commentary and final decision. The absence of a regular, dedicated person now is represented in the lack of writing. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I heard online that we were smoking cigars in an oak-paneled room and deliberately refusing to write arb reports so as to suppress the truth about the brave fighters of Wikipediocracy; that version of the story makes us sound really powerful and well-staffed, so maybe we should go with that. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a cigar fan, but I could imagine myself enjoying a Bourbon in that oak paneled room. It will have to wait for my big raise as a Signpost editor, though. How's that coming along, anyway? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sidetracked by having to translate like 800 fr.wp AN/I threads about "le wokisme" [sic]... <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really think we should have one on the COI case that ended recently, if there is time. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: User:Ixtal/AAA
Sorry for the delays, since I had discussed with y'all sharing it months ago. We managed to shorten the query to <10 seconds so I'll be done with the data collection within the week. The associated graphs won't work on wiki (:sobs:) but I can host them on my website as a d3.js graph and link said website within the essay if that's fine with y'all. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Next "In the media" (2)
Cf. this request for an uninvolved proofreader to do some fact-checking. Thank you. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote the section. Are you comfortable editing the text in the way you proposed? I encourage you to do so.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I reacted a bit. If you are comfortable editing then give it a go. I reworded the text to clarify that the Friction magazine article is an open letter by LGBT+ Wikipedia editors, so it is a source with a perspective and not attempting neutrality.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You removed the POV tag without treating any of the three problems:
 * The recently-created essay Wikipedia:No queerphobia and its related deletion discussion reflect the current mood at English Wikipedia. The close of that discussion said that folks agree that people can write pretty much whatever they want in essay space as long as it does not violate policy.  This may or may not reflect a "mood" or a "zeitgeist".
 * Deadnaming is the term for the hateful practice of referring to a transgender person by their former name in unnecessary contexts. That's not what Merriam Webster (§) or en.wp say.
 * The results of that poll were narrowly in favor of including the deadnames. This "summary" fails to mention that the birth name must be reported in RS for it to be mentioned anywhere (generally in the early biography section only), and that the person must have become notable primarily while still using their birthname for it to be mentioned in the infobox or in the lede. NB: it is about the lede that there was a narrow majority of people saying that a person who became notable while still using their birthname should have their birthname mentioned in the lede.  For the rest of the votes (excepting typography) there was no mention of a "narrow" majority.
 * I would expect these matters to be addressed before removing the POV tag. I will not become a co-author of this summary:  I think it's up to the Signpost to factcheck these points. This is enough of a hot-button issue that I don't think this should be done sloppily.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @SashiRolls I checked with BR and got the go-ahead to boldly copy edit it for them and just did so, I believe I addressed your points.
 * I changed it to "perhaps reflects" - I do think it does as despite that consensus, many people wanted it deleted for various reasons, and many took issues with certain definitions given for queerphobia. The zeitgeist can't be observed in the essay or the close, but the edit history, talk page, and discussions. Since it was a discussion of what constitutes queerphobia and how to handle it, I think it bears mention.
 * I removed that sentence, the discussion wasn't about deadnaming (ie, using the deadname), it was about mentioning the deadname, which is different.
 * I added more details of the poll to better represent what it concluded, as well as gave context of the style guidelines that preceded it.
 * I generally added some more details, dealt with some voice issues, and restructued a little so the flow is
 * an open letter was published about this poll ->
 * why the poll was held + what happened in this poll + who else covered it ->
 * here's what the open letter said about this poll and frwiki in general+ an here's an open letter saying similar things from 2 years ago
 * -> here's how it's been discussed crosswiki
 * Please let me know if that addresses your POV / fact check concerns! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While it was an improvement, unsurprisingly the author of the essay mentioned in the first paragraph is not likely to be the most neutral commentator on their essay. I made a couple sample edits, both of which had mistakes in them (the second, while better than the first, failed to mention that the poll was on fr.wp when the subject was introduced! lol)  Nevertheless, both of these versions are less POV than the current text, which now claims that a user essay and the discussion of its deletion (for "I don't like it" or redundancy reasons) are comparable to a poll that had hundreds of participants discussing a considerably more weighty BLP issue than whether users have the right to express their opinions in an essay. As I said, I don't wish to co-author the article.  Nevertheless you are welcome to incorporate any suggestions you find useful and discard the rest. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a fair point with regard to my neutrality lol. As such, I tried not to expand on it and focus on presenting it for other editors to interpret as they see fit. I don't think they're comparable fully, but two key similarities pop up imo 1) they're an attempt to garner community consensus with regards to how to respect LGBT people 2) both had charges of canvassing. I've just made some edits to try and add more details in general and incorporate your suggestions. I moved the no queerphobes mention to the bottom, disclosed I edited it, and added mention of the DRV. I also added a mention of the latest MOS:DEADNAME discussion which seems pertinent. As it stands, the essay/MFD/DRV and the deadname RFC were the most high profile closed cases regarding transphobia/naming recently on enwiki, I was also tempted to mention the Telegraph discussion on RSN but since it's ongoing think it's probably better not to. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Man we're past deadline -- not just writing deadline, but also publication deadline -- and I am already working on an arb report covering eighteen months instead of one month -- Jesus Christmas this is a gigantic block of text to proofread and copyedit that wasn't here yesterday... also it's about the hottest-button social issue of our times... also it's in French... what in tarnation... why the hell was there an articlespace pov tag in this... so many questions... I guess I will answer them, myself, tonight, starting with what in the damn hell the significance is of these Friction guys -- gals -- folx -- saying "LGBTQUIA+" in the lead of their article and "LGBTQIA+" in the headline, why are they saying "contributeurices" instead of "contributeurs" (are they all women?) because WiR on here sure don't call themselves "editrices" or "contributresses", maybe this is some weird French thing, <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I can only answer some of the questions (and apologize for the block of text I made you proofread and French rabbit hole we led you down lol).
 * LGBTQUIA+ seems to be Friction Magazine's acronym, not the authors of the letter. It's used to say Following numerous press articles on the treatment of trans people on Wikipedia, several LGBTQUIA+ contributors have written this open letter that we are publishing today on Friction Magazine. in the summary while the editors themselves use the shorter acronym and the byline is for "Contributeurices LGBTQIA+". I realized that only after adding a clarification to the article the U is for "undefined" (and, weirdly enough but neither here nor there, seems to primarily be a West Coast US thing).
 * wrt "contributeurices", AFAICT it's a gender neutral reclamation, stemming from discussions in French linguistic circles over the last few years on refeminization (French dropped the feminine forms of many words and kept only the masculine, there have been efforts in recent years 1) to reintroduce the feminine and 2) to hybridize the feminine and masculine). The french feminine form of contributors would be "contributrices" ie: this is some weird French thing, like if we combined "actors" and "actresses" as "actoresses" to show the group was gender neutral
 * Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Essay May 14 2024
It's a bit late notice, but since it's pre-written, could WP:No Queerphobia be featured as the essay for today's issue? I saw it was mentioned in the In The Media section briefly and there isn't an essay pre-slated so thought I should ask, my apologies if this is the incorrect place for that. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I don't know if we'll be able to sneak it in, to be honest, although it's @JPxG who has the last say. Still, you've done a pretty good job! Oltrepier (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that essay might be too controversial to feature on The Signpost. Nothing against the essay, of course, but a lot of people do not like it, even those who oppose queerphobia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both your inputs! I'm not super invested in having it in the Signpost, but part of the reason I wrote it in Wikipedia: space was because I wanted to get more feedback and have it be a community essay (at this point, enough editors have chimed in I don't consider it mine). As such, reposting it in the signpost seems like a good way to get some more input and perhaps raise awareness about issues of discrimination me and other editors feel we have to deal with. I'm not sure if its mention in the "In the Media" makes it superfluous for the issue or a good supplement, and I'm not sure how controversial it will be and how much of a factor that is (though I doubt it'll stir more controversy than a certain humour essay lol). All we can do is wait for the editor in chief (who, IIRC, indirectly contributed to it through suggestions I incorporated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think another one of these past deadline in the same issue would have given me a coronary, maybe next one. I was pretty stuffed with the arb report also, orz././... <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Included in issue 8 draft
See Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging everyone involved in the above discussion. This essay remains extremely controversial and a dispute surrounding it is currently at ANI. I still think that this essay is too controversial to feature in The Signpost, and we should leave it out. I say this as someone who strongly opposes queerphobia. I simply think that it would be a bad idea for The Signpost to get involved here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not extremely controversial, there was a pretty clear consensus (or two) it met all the policies and guidelines of a userspace essay. Some don't like it, but that holds for all essays. Considering it would be published either right before or at the start of pride month, it seems the perfect time to publish an essay on queerphobia on enwiki and what policies provide recourse written by queer editors. The ANI case is going to a SNOW close GENSEX TBAN for the editor who opened it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense. I was just worried about the angry shouting spreading to the Signpost comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A reasonable worry lol, I think it'll be a tempest in a teapot though. It's already been at MFD, DRV, AE, ANI, the LGBT noticeboard, and etc so I would hope all who've got strong feeling on it either way have got it out of their system and some fresh perspectives will arise. There will probably be some arguing in the comments, but I'm guessing it will look like Wikipedia Signpost/2024-05-16/Comix and everyone will move on quickly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

20:7 Traffic report
It looks like the upcoming Top25 report, through May 11, is under development but nearly done. Should we pull it in to the current issue, in its current state? Preview at Special:Permalink/1223973452. My concern is if we don't put it in this issue, it will be pretty stale by the time the next issue of The Signpost comes out. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't want to put 4 again. But the Signpost is already late, will post the latest one. igordebraga ≠ 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Next news and notes - WMF reports
Just a quick note here, @Jayen466 thanks for flagging in your draft that the Annual Report had not been added to the Financial Reports page. This has now been done. Cheers, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, Julia. Grüße, Andreas JN 466 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

May 16th out
Boy oh boy -- anyway I am running the script now, single talk page should be showing up at the top of the newsroom talk (in a cot) like always -- 4am, time to sloop. Ready to see which of the things from this issue the pitchforks get out for !!!! <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the Arbitration report and everything else.
 * I set the next issue date to 31 May, so we could have two in this month. I hope this is OK with the Newsroom team. Reminder: we have a major US holiday the weekend just prior to the publication date, which is a three-day weekend for many, so we shouldn't depend on high team productivity at that time – at least from United Statesians. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed WMF submissions
notes here that there is currently a substantial backlog of WMF-submitted Signpost contributions. This seems unfortunate, since we should be encouraging and rewarding foundation folks who seek to communicate with us here, and since some are old enough at this point that they may have gone out of date. Would the editors be able to try to clear this backlog over the coming issues? (That said, we should of course be careful, since someone at the foundation doing particular work is by definition unable to report on that work as an outsider, so we should use opinion or other perspective labels as needed.) <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Of the couple on there, there are two that sat for some time. Currently one of those is at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report and I've reached out to the authors to confirm it's still up-to-date -- it looks ready to run basically.
 * Another is User:ELappen (WMF)/Signpost draft -- could this go into N&N? take a look if you can, and see if this can be slotted into N&N in the Form 990 section, or if it would be better to have it be its own piece. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I think as it stands, it is too short for a standalone section. My suggestion would be to add it in a quote box or as a separate section in the next N&N. Andreas  JN 466 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved the draft by ELappen (WMF) to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. for simplicity of attribution do you want to re-enter "WikiConference in Indiana" info at the new page? You can refer to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes 0 for your text. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPxG, Sdkb: The FAQ is a moving target. Publication is planned for tomorrow now, right? Andreas  JN 466 14:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Comix
this is annoyingly unfunny. ltb d l (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Humor is subjective. This seems non-actionable unless you have something to offer regarding editorial process...? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * kill the comics section, that could work. ltb d l (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, a serious question: are you actually requesting that we stop having a feature because you personally find some of the stuff in it dumb? If this is the case, then no.
 * If this is not the case, and you are just saying you think it sucks, then I appreciate the feedback and apologize for writing and running so much anodyne stuff. I have done my best within the constraints we must operate in. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it'd get rid of a lot of drama, probably. ltb d l (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Turn on your monitor... <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

20:8 Recent research
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Working on this and aiming to have something publishable in the next couple of hours. (Do we know that the actual publication deadline is likely to be?)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, while I've been trying to do my share to move some other blockers for this issue in the state of elevated deadline fluidity, I haven't yet gotten around to wrapping RR up - will have something ready in six hours or less from now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, I got home much later than anticipated last night (and focused on helping to remove other blockers for this issue earlier today). I'm very curious about the answer to Smallbones' question below, but aim to have RR publishable in about three hours in any case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ph.D. thesis a first?
Is this the first Ph.D. thesis to come from research on Wikipedia? I came across it at hackernoon. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not the first by a very very long shot ;) That said, it seems we haven't covered it yet (only a related paper coauthored by the same author), so thanks for the heads-up; I'll put it on our todo list. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

20:9 Special report
Hello! First of all, sorry for not being able to help with the up-coming issue: I've been pretty much snowed with other tasks and priorities...

Since the first ever election cycle for the newly-established Italian ArbCom has just come to an end, I feel like it would be nice to talk about it next time, so much that I'm considering to write a full Special report about it, by even reaching out to some of the most notable users involved in the process. However, if you feel like we should rather stick to a shorter blurb in the "News and notes" column, I'd be up for it, as well!

How do you all feel about this? Oltrepier (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We are abjectly grateful to anyone who writes anything at all about the governance of the non-English projects. Sounds interesting, in particular given the Orsini affair and the recent de-stewarding of one of the Italian stewards. Andreas  JN 466 14:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jayen466 I'm very happy to read this! So, do you think it deserves its own Special report? Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Up to the EiC, but there aren't too many projects that have an ArbCom, so if a major project creates one, yes, I'd say that's worth writing about. I also wonder if User:Gitz6666 might like to contribute some views or info to any article; he is a native speaker. Andreas JN 466 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid that a contribution from me would be perceived as inappropraite, even inflammatory, by many it.wiki users. Notable points about the Italian ArbCom: 1. It has limited purview and doesn't deal with deflagging/desysopping. 2. The arbitrators' opinions/votes and their reasoning are kept secret from the community (see here at No 4), which I find quite extraordinary since arbitrators are elected by the community. I've written my views on this in my blog here (in Italian). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gitz. Oltrepier, Gitz's comments would certainly be worth referring to. How is your Italian? Andreas JN 466 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jayen466 Uhhh, it's actually my native language, so... quite good! : D Oltrepier (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Superb! I didn't know. Andreas  JN 466 12:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andreas that this sounds like a valuable topic to cover. FWIW, regarding the steward election outcome: I posted a brief summary here.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for 20:8 Opinion
See User:Bri/Signpost Opinion1. It's sort of brief, a little bit tongue in cheek, but a little bit not. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bri Sounds funny, go for it! Oltrepier (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might also want to look for "delve into", "dive into", "humorous", and the dreaded four-bolded-bulletpoint style. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this needs more writing especially in the intro. I will hold it over to next issue. If anybody wants to collaborate on it, jump in! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you may be interested in the AI catchphrases as recorded by WikiProject AI Cleanup! <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooh, very nice. Maybe this is more than a semi joke after all. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

20:8 featured content
@Generalissima and i are working on a featured content piece for this issue. we talked about this briefly in the discord with @JPxG - the "start article" button for featured content on the newsroom page doesn't give any pre-loaded content currently, which would be a good thing to fix. we also may do something similar to jpxg's arb report and split it between two issues, as there's a lot to get through for the last 6ish months. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> ... sawyer * he/they *  talk  04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is actually already a preload template for "Featured content", at Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC.
 * As for why it fails to load when using the "Start article" button for that section at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: It looks like this may be a bug introduced by some recent whitespace-optimizing edits, I have followed up on the template's talk page with more details.
 * In the meantime, this link should work in lieu of the "Start article" button:.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That newsroom task template is probably the single most convoluted piece of code I have ever seen on this site. That and the draft template are horrifyingly complicated layers-on-layers-on-layers that only barely work -- I have no idea why that wasn't supplying the & in the URL (since it wasn't actually constructing the URL directly in text -- it was invoking a tag!). Well, anyway, that was the only department that had a preload AND and "editintro", so I just merged the two into one.
 * Honestly, what needs to happen is that the whole template needs to be rewritten, perhaps with more than one layer, because there is just too much stuff going on in one template, even when you have the seven or eight (!!!) layers of {}{}}} – {}{}}} – {}{{}{} gobbledygook properly indented so as to see wth is going on. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The button for 'Next featured content' works just fine for me, BTW. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read JPxG's comment that you are replying to? He implemented a stopgap measure by removing support for the "edittintro" parameter entirely from the template; and moving the content of Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC/intro into Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC. The actual bug is still unsolved, but if folks can live without such advice in the editnotice (i.e. are fine with deleting it from the preloaded content every time), I think that's an OK solution for the time being.
 * (By the way, JPxG, I don't think your deletion of Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC/intro satisfies G6. And policies aside, it caused lots of links to break; and the history may be worth preserving too, e.g. so that we know who authored these exhortations to the authors of "Featured content". I suggest restoring the page and replacing it with a redirect to Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC.)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This was the fix. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it (even if this fix is obsolete now due to JPxG's removal of the entire parameter).
 * Just out of technical curiosity though: What's the reason that this "|" was needed here but - apparently - not in earlier versions (example)?
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see any links that broke. There were 23 in WLH, but all of the template links were from it being in a bulleted list in the documentation page for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload. The rest were from automatically generated index pages (e.g. Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index, which uses SQL reports and exists solely to make finding pages easier and allow RelatedChanges links) -- none of them are an actual use or reference to the page. A insource search returns some obsolete (not linked to or transcluded anywhere and untouched for about a decade) templates like this and this. It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template -- we have other editnotices but they don't work like this. The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost -- for health's sake I think that our editnotices should be in the editnotice template, not all of them in there except for one which is randomly at a different page using an entirely different MediaWiki extension invoked through a different unrelated family of templates. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have fixed this -- it's just at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content now, with the rest of the editnotices. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the history. (Again, while I'm not saying it's equally important to preserve every little bit, in this case it does matter to know that these instructions were authored by Adam back in 2014, for example.)
 * I do not see any links that broke - not sure how you mean that, e.g. the WLH list currently still points to a broken link from this talk page discussion (which btw provides some additional context on how that intro came to be). And as you indicate, there may be other uses that are not visible in WLH. I seem to recall various prior discussions on this page about disruptions to the Signpost's processes caused by over-eager admins deleting pages in what they considered to be uncontroversial cleanup. In some cases this might have been avoided by simply leaving a redirect in place.
 * The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost - actually there are more such pages which are not yet included there (and which we might want to mark as obsolete), e.g. Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (news) and Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (opinion) ...
 * It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template - I hear you, but is there a more elegant solution for generating those buttons in the newsroom page ? In any case, that kind of convoluted and opaque codebase is yet another reason to tread carefully with non-essential cleanup operations and merely optical improvements, unless one is prepared to check thoroughly that they don't lead to unintended consequences.
 * Apropos, similar for your recent deletion/move without redirect of Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Op-Ed, which created no less than 1029 broken links (sure, many of them in less-trafficked talk page archives, but on the other hand I suspect that for this story in particular there will also be relevant interwiki and off-wiki links; it was an op-ed of some long-term impact on academic research). I am not taking sides in the beef between you and Chris troutman on whether that should be "Op-Ed" or "Op-ed" ;-) But if you feel the need to spend time on such minor spelling tweaks deep in the archives, at least also spend the time to check that the setting for leaving a redirect is enabled when you conduct the page move.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 50 "Op-Ed"s, 192 "Op-ed"s. It actually doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me -- the only reason I de-moved it was because retitling it killed the pageviews. The pageviews API doesn't move its records to a new title when a page gets moved, so every article that has its URL changed after the fact will end up with 0 pageviews. This is, incidentally, why there remain so many of them with inconsistent capitalization; it'd break links and pageview stats to retitle them now :( <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As for redirects in article space, there are none -- zero -- they simply should not exist and not be created. There is a lot of stuff that depends on there being a one-to-one relationship between pages in Signpost article space and Signpost articles (most of the exceptions were either ghost articles, which existed at a date and department but had never actually been published, or ghost issues, which had an issue page but no articles). Out of about six thousand articles, there were only a few redirects in the first place, and almost all of them had zero incoming links (although I manually retargeted the ones that did have incoming links when I was fixing them). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 10:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As for redirects in article space, there are none -- zero -- they simply should not exist and not be created. - It's not clear to me what you are responding to here. Who was talking about redirects from the article namespace?
 * retitling it killed the pageviews. The pageviews API doesn't move its records to a new title when a page gets moved, so every article that has its URL changed after the fact will end up with 0 pageviews - again, I don't have a strong opinion on whether those should have been retitled. But note that that's another reason why one should not delete redirects when moving pages, since they allow one to automatically include views accumulated under the previous page title (see e.g. the "Include redirects" option of the Pageviews tool ).
 * There is a lot of stuff that depends on there being a one-to-one relationship between pages in Signpost article space and Signpost articles - what "stuff" exactly gets broken by the presence of a simple redirect? If it's one of your kludgy scripts, I would recommend fixing that instead of degrading the experience of human readers of our archives.
 * almost all of them had zero incoming links (although I manually retargeted the ones that did have incoming links when I was fixing them) - well, obviously that's not true for the above example, where there are 1029 broken links (not counting the one in this discussion), e.g. in the list of our "2019's most commented-upon articles" at Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-03-01/Special_report.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing me there! i'll chat with Generalissima <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * are you still aiming to have it ready in time for this issue? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * realistically probably not, at least on my part. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  03:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can finish my part within the next few hours, but that only would include the FAs, not the FPs and FLs. This might be worth splitting anyhow, due to how massive the list is — a smaller FA list will give the FL/FPs in the backlog more time to shine. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * agreed - i really like your FA showcase piece, and doing a more comprehensive piece on the rest of the FC promoted in the last 7 months will be more feasible for next issue i think (i will also give a write-up of whatever new FAs are promoted between now & then) <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  18:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Generalissima/Signpost test okay so as far as I can tell it's done here - how do I submit this thing? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideally use the "Start article" button for Featured content at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom (which, as discussed above, was broken earlier but should now work again). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @HaeB @Generalissima @Sawyer777 I just wanted to let you know that I've copied your draft into the "Featured content" column, so now you can start copyediting and expanding them from there! Oltrepier (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

20:8 Disinformation report
I'm going to replace the piccy on this one ... having an individual's portrait below the title "disinformation" probably won't fly. The same term never appears in their biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See the discussion over at the Submissions page, in particular . Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With regards to issues raised:
 * @JPxG you said the article 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 - I think you're mistaking me for somebody else and would like clarification on that, I joined after he left and there is no ongoing dispute - I nommed an AFD for a POVFORK of his that quickly passed 8-1 (the 1 being an editor who encouraged him to write it) in a week in January this year and openly state so in the article.
 * You said Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. - which really confused me: this is a disinformation report piece on how a professional quack used WP to promote WP:FRINGE views, attack his opponents, edit with COIs, and sockpuppet. He is notable IRL for his anti-trans advocacy per multiple RS, and this was an investigative piece about how he used WP to do it. ARBCOM ignored evidence of issues with his editing and didn't give him any real sanctions (just an IBAN, which he still ignored with socks). What do you believe I'm leaving out and where should the focus be?
 * @Bri, perhaps the image of Clarke Institute of Psychiatry could work?
 * Being real, I poured over a dozen hours into researching and writing this collaboratively because I've wanted to write for the signpost for a while and really enjoyed getting to work with y'all in the last issue and thought this would be the perfect piece to kick off pride.
 * I take great pride (pun unintended) in my writing and my ability to factor in constructive criticism so I'd deeply appreciate being given the chance to respond to specific issues and update the article so it can be signpost worthy by this issue if that's possible. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason why you are extending the discussion to this page instead of continuing it at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions (where you had already posted a lengthy response to the same editorial decision by JPxG earlier)? This is veering into WP:BLUDGEON territory. I have followed up with some further remarks on your user talk page.
 * getting to work with y'all in the last issue - not quite sure about the precise meaning of work with y'all here (I for example wasn't involved there at all). But it's interesting that you bring this up, considering that concerns were voiced there already (by SashiRolls, an editor not involved in the discussion about your current piece), e.g. about fact-checking and your decision to insert yourself in the Signpost's journalistic reporting on the deletion debates about your own essay. May I also that remind you that this apparently highly controversial essay is still slated to run in this Signpost issue. So it's not exactly like your views in this area (WP:GENSEX, which you had previously been topic-banned from and are still under various restrictions for, in particular regarding articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed) are being censored by the Signpost.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm out for the evening and want to briefly reply.
 * I tried to summarize rather than extend the discussion here, particularly my main point that JPxG seems to be operating on a case of mistaken identity.
 * Y'all in this case meant the signpost as a whole
 * Sashirolls raised issues with the draft before I was involved, called my edits addressing their concerns an improvement and more NPOV, noted some remaining concerns, and I addressed them.
 * I don't believe I am being censored and don't object to the piece being declined, I'm just trying to figure out 1) was that because of the mistaken identity and 2) is there time to fix the piece and outstanding problems in it before the issue's published.
 * My apologies, I didn't mean to bludgeon, just trying to clarify the process because I'm unused to it. I appreciate your candor and advice, and will reply to the message on my talk page tomorrow. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for that link. So if the E-in-C already said the high-res picture of an individual under the headline "Disinformation" is a bad idea that makes two of us.
 * I think part of what makes the picture itself such an issue for me is its personalization of the dispute. It's as if to say "this *particular guy*, right here in this picture, is creating disinformation". Rather than, here's an examination of the phenomenon of (potential) disinformation through the lens of this particular back-and-forth. I'm OK with the latter, though it might be borderline OK-ness.
 * To resolve the picture quandary, first I sought something that shows the search-for-truth image somewhere in Commons. The closest I came up with was File:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg, and it didn't hit the mark for me. Both because of the excessive graphic business, and because it seems to imply the truth is a constant that one can just measure a position against, instead of recognizing the importance of the process of conducting the conversation to discover a consensus position. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read the linked comment by JPxG in full, in particular the "declined" on top. I understand we are not going to run this piece. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review getting it right is better than being hasty without consensus. Publishing the current issue is the only concern for now but I would like to support YFNS in revising this article for resubmission to a future issue of Signpost. I can be off the mark with my enthusiasm to support LGBT+ pieces in June as pride month, but I still feel that there are elements of good disinformation reporting here.
 * Here is what I request of you all -
 * Put a burden of duty on me to collaborate with YFNS to meet any standard you set, then reconsider the submission in a future issue. I suggest some improvements below.
 * Recognize that YFNS is a Wikipedia editor of about 2 years. There was some misunderstanding, and I can vouch that this user came years after the 2013 ArbCom ruling, and was not part of that.
 * Here are some improvements that I can arrange -
 * Any of you veto any concepts in the piece that make it too complex, and we will get a shorter focused article
 * I can get other volunteers to confirm fact-checking of claims and sign off
 * I can get someone with editorial experience to sign off on appropriate tone for the voice of The Signpost
 * Anything else you suggest
 * I am not asking for pre-acceptance, but I would like to support YFNS in taking another chance at submission with a plan for improvement. Thanks. Also, thanks for your sincere and thoughtful reviews. You are making the right calls and are all great collaborators.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I felt the most egregious thing in it is there's a sort of 'compare and contrast' between 'see this person was bad and got away with it' and 'but this other person wasn't as bad and didn't get away with it'. So figure our what is the central thesis of the piece, and focus on that. If it's that Cantor 'got away with it' for too long, maybe it's worth checking in on every time someone tried to bring Cantor to one of the drama boards. Did people raise COI/SELFPROMO concerns? If not why not? If yes, were these ignored? What policies existed at the time?
 * If it's a general piece trying to do a general history of antitranswhateverism activism on Wikipedia, then you can't single out Cantor, and have to look at other antitranswhateverism activists on Wikipedia and see if those got sanctioned too, and in light of what policies, keeping in mind that we don't usually ban people for viewpoints, but rather for behavioural issues. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was planning to do a part two on current examples of anti-trans advocacy/misinformation (the thesis of which is they're better handled these days, but funny enough are prone to cite Cantor and his colleagues) while this one was supposed to be Cantor specifically since he's notable for anti-trans advocacy IRL, was half of an ARBCOM case, and was a prolific editor for over a decade.
 * People did raise COI/SELFPROMO concerns all the time across various drama boards, I mention a lot of it in the piece but could try and find more. He was occasionally lightly sanctioned for it. I'll find details on how the COI policy changed, but he very definitely broke it as "Marion", then continued to go after his opponents while disclosing his COI, but was also caught socking to COI edit for years.
 * I'll take out more of the comparison/contrasting, but I just checked and only ~1/12 of the piece discusses James. The scope of the sexology case was specifically James' and Cantor's interactions/general behavior so I worry cutting out further mention of her could take away context. It's hard not to compare and contrast how the same committee passed out such disparate sanctions to the two people the case focused on. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Forgot to mention it here, but I rewrote and resubmitted the piece - it's relisted on the submissions page under Disinformation report take 2 (apologies if I'm supposed to start a new section here instead of notifying y'all in this one). Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

20:9 In the media
Hello! I just wanted to point out a very interesting article from Il Post about the difficulties encountered by newly-registered Wikipedia users during their first contributions, and the tips they can take advantage of to improve and keep their confidence up.

The article was written by Viola Stefanello – who we already cited on the Signpost before – and it's very interesting and informative, especially considering the context of a seemingly ever-shrinking base of users and admins on this platform. It also cites a recent video tutorial by Molly White and contains several brief interviews, including to Wikimedian Marta Arosio and admin Sannita.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to add it myself, but it should make for a pretty engaging lead story! Oltrepier (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @HaeB @Jayen466 Maybe, we could even kill two birds with one stone and mention this into the Special report I originally suggested, even though it's quite an ambitious task... How do you feel about that? Oltrepier (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oltrepier I think it could work either way – if it's in ITM, you could add a link to your Special Report there, and vice versa. We would actually have an issue that mentions Italian Wikipedia in two segments!!!
 * But if the content ties in well with the Italian ArbCom story and adds a valuable extra perspective – well, then go for it. We could still put a little note in ITM regardless. Andreas JN 466 20:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jayen466 Sounds good! However, I've got pretty snowed under with some real-life priorities at the moment, so I think it's better if I back off slightly from my ambitious plan, and just work on the "In the media" piece for now (it should be the "lighter" blurb of the two, anyway, both topically and in terms of workload).
 * Sorry about that... Oltrepier (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies again for being so late... I should be able to work on my ITM blurb from Tuesday afternoon on. Oltrepier (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

On [third] thought, I've decided to focus on pushing my original idea through for the next issue, since I've had quite a hectic schedule in real life as of late; plus, the ITM column for this issue already looks quite filled up, so let's not make it too bloated. I hope this isn't a problem... Oltrepier (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I've tried to copy-edit your lead blurb and incorporate some links and elements, so I hope I've done a good-enough job. By the way, I think we should just delete those sources and videos left at the bottom: the article already seems in nice shape, and leaving all that material would just cause confusion, in my opinion...

Offering addition for ADL piece
I'm not on the byline for the upcoming issue's "Wikipedia editors deem Anti-Defamation League unreliable on Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and think it's best to keep it that way. But wanted to note: Jewish Insider has a piece just posted yesterday, titled "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia", with this quote: "the exchange, which took place in an online community dedicated to editing Wikipedia articles to better reflect a pro-Palestinian narrative, offers a glimpse at how ideologically motivated actors operate behind the scenes to shape the knowledge shared on Wikipedia". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, just from the JTA agency two days ago: WMF responded to their inquiry and "did not address the content of the letter [from Jewish gorups asking WMF to override the ADL decision&#93; but appeared to reject its very premise". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bri Thank you for flagging it, I've just incorporated the response into the blurb. Oltrepier (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing
There's a piece in Entrepreneur.com just published, titled The Hidden World of Wikipedia Page Creation Services. It's being discussed at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. I scanned it and it looks like possibly an advertorial. I don't know if we should keep covering this sort of thing. On the one hand it keeps our readers aware of the phenomenon of paid editing. On the other hand I don't know if we want to direct traffic to this kind of thing, in principle. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw it and gave it a pretty good tour. Maybe next month, it's too late for this issue. I might go down to its non-office nearby. It could be a straight scam, rather than paid PR, but its apparently Indian not Pakistani. If so, maybe we could contact the US Entrepreneur, which is a partner in the Indian edition. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 06:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Movement Charter Ratification vote
Different people describe the meta:Movement Charter in different ways. My own view of it is that it contributes greatly to justifying who will decide how to spend the the upcoming US$billion in Wikimedia revenue.

The big public ratification vote for the Charter will run from 25 June to 9 July. I started a draft article on the vote at
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes

On 10 June the drafting committee published the final version of the Charter. I posted to the Charter talk page asking for community reactions for publishing in The Signpost.
 * meta:Talk:Movement_Charter

The April 2024 Wikimedia Summit produced a list of dealbreakers which attendees demanded that the previous version of the Charter must fix, or that they would recommend against ratification. I was an attendee there. Summit organizers set up a simple gradesheet for anyone to use to mark yes/no on whether the revised Charter addressed those deal-breaking problems. I am seeking for someone, or ideally a group, to come to consensus on grades for the revision.
 * gradesheet for Summit versus Charter

I generally have this story under control but if anyone wants to help coordinate, especially by reaching out for community comment to anyone who will speak up, then please join.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Requested feedback from Village_pump_(policy). I also requested help from the Wikimedia Summit organizing team but not sure what processes they have for collecting or soliciting feedback. I just thought they may somehow have plans to collect something.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * For your information: it was only the core Charter text that was published early. For a complete understanding, be aware of the publication/update of all supplementary documents still coming up on Monday June 18th. Ciell (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) ( MCDC member )
 * I know you are on the drafting committee. Can you also get me brief comment from your committee on the extent to which you recommend ratification? Are you unanimous, to what extent do you feel that you fulfilled the dealbreaking demands, how would you interpret a "no" vote if it came to that? Thanks.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this, Bluerasberry! Andreas JN 466 20:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * At Portuguese Wikipedia, pt:Wikipédia:Esplanada/geral/Sobre_a_Carta_de_princípios_do_Movimento_Wikimedia_(13jun2024). thanks for writing. The criticism I see here is common, including over-representation of wiki community organizations, lack of representation for individuals who have no wiki organization membership, lack of capacity for managing community governance in any case, and WMF remains out of bounds of accountability. Anyone else can read and interpret this for themselves; this is me using machine translation and making sense of it in my own way.   Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ping me. Just to reinforce here what I said in Portuguese Wikipedia, I strong disagree that affiliates members can occupy an vote for both the 12 positions for "Wikimedia community at large" and the 8 positions for affiliates, that would make affiliates over-represented and non-affiliates volunteers under-represented, those 12 positions should be only for non-affiliates volunteers. When voting people should be asked if they consider themselves as non-affiliate an vote for the 12 non-affiliates positions or consider themselves as affiliates members and vote for the 8 affiliates positions in the global council, no one should be able to vote twice. Danilo.mac (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Bluerasberry, thanks for the ping. I'll leave here an adapted version of the notes I've left at the Commons Village Pump, which is kind of a resumed version of what we've been discussing at the wiki.pt Esplanada:
 * The Charter refers some "community leadership" as the accountable body for each Wikimedia project, without defining what it means (the whole community, some specific members?);
 * Charter rules over all Wikimedia project policies, but not over those of the Wikimedia affiliates and the WMF;
 * Charter leaves WMF out of the Global Council (community + affiliates), as an independent body at the same power level;
 * While the whole community, including affiliate people, get to elect 12 seats out of 25 in the Global Council, affiliates themselves get an additional 8 seats for themselves, which I consider a severe and totally unjustified unbalance of power towards affiliates - which not uncommonly do not represent anything but themselves and have their own agenda, and commonly have at least some degree of these problems;
 * In general, this Charter seems to treat onwiki communities as the underdog of the Wikimedia Movement, when in fact they are the core of the whole thing, where all starts and where almost all Wikimedia funding comes from.
 * I don't think this is acceptable, and will certainly vote to block this charter. I advise you to read it carefully, and eventually vote to block it as well, as I don't see how this could favor our community (community here meaning any Wikimedia project I participate in).
 * Darwin  Ahoy!  17:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here I am editor and I plan to report what you say and your recommendation, but The Signpost is not going to make a voting recommendation in its own voice. I really am not sure who will comment or what they will say. The points you write here are easy to understand and valid, relatable criticism to the Charter.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bluerasberry Absolutely. I think this is the first time I write here, so I just voiced my opinion in a rather informal way. Use it as you please an how it fits better (and if it fits at all).
 * Btw, the "you" above is not really you, Bluerasberry, but the community at large - it's the collective you. I apologize if I passed the wrong idea 😅 Darwin   Ahoy!  16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note the board will likely reject the Movement Charter anyway: --Andreas JN 466 12:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft


 * Wikimedia Germany has thrown its weight behind the Movement Charter: m:Talk:Movement_Charter Andreas JN 466 10:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this. The current charter draft has lots of rough edges, and yet is designed to make amendment almost impossible. It is not ready for ratification. It primarily needs to define something flexible that we can refine as it starts to take effect.

A refrain by drafters in the past weeks has been that it is "safe to try", but I find that not to be so. (Given our fondness for rules-lawyering and the siren song of policy creep) In particular:
 * It makes amendments extremely onerous: for any change, first one has to get 50 people to come to Meta to support the idea. Then the change has to be written up and translated and presented for a global ratification process just like the initial Charter ratification process: with votes by communities and affiliates and WMF. No changes of any kind can be considered until an initial Council is voted in and formalizes these processes.
 * It delegates a lot of power to affiliates with few checks and balances, without addressing either the potential double-counting of affiliate members in governance, or the challenge of the Affiliates as a bloc being made up primarily of small, informal user groups which were not intended to be units of governance.
 * It mandates that the new Council must do four difficult things (without specifying how, or how that will be funded, or how elections will work), which means those participating will have a huge workload immediately and little spare time and capacity to polish the rough edges and build trust and collaborative energy with other parts of the movement. We've already seen a smaller version of this problem affect the MCDC itself: because it felt that it was given an enormous task that could not be shared, its members spent thousands of hours working mainly behind closed doors, and did not build a great deal of trust and shared purpose with the broader community which the charter and a council are meant to represent.
 * It proposes a far-reaching transfer of decision-making from one small group (the WMF Board + executives) to another (the Global Council) without providing for a transition, or articulating exactly how these will work together or how to ensure the new equilibrium is more equitable. There is some hand-waving about how this is obviously better, but even the fairly limited checks and balances of the WMF that have developed over time make more explicit provision for equity and consultation and responsibility to editors than this definition of a Council.
 * It invents a few new terms and concepts, and states a somewhat arbitrary selection of our shared values, as though they are foundational, unchangeable aspects of our identity and work.

I'll try to write up more coherent thoughts tomorrow, but these are quick thoughts. – SJ + 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I drafted a Simplified charter as an example of a cleaner foundation to work from. It highlights up front the problems being solved, limits itself to the simplest declaration and definition that could address them, and avoids bureaucratic jargon.  It offers a bit of motivation without overstating how much it can speak for the movement re: shared values.  And it is humble about the need for change in the early days of starting up something as complex as a global council, accepting that details and foundational documents will need revision before trying to ratify a static version meant to last for years or decades.
 * Unlike the MCDC text, which was never meant to be edited even while in the 'drafting' stage, this is a wiki; readers are welcome to edit to your heart's content. – SJ + 18:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

moved from : I have added an endorsement to the article, which was unsolicited and received off-wiki from one of the drafting committee members. We didn't discuss whether this would be part of the article, so bringing it up here for discussion, if necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) end of moved part HaeB (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it pretty odd, considering e.g. the work that Bluerasberry had already to solicit comments in public, that this committee member reached out in private (or what does "off-wiki" mean?) to "the Signpost" to have their personal opinions featured at much greater length than any of the other Wikimedians that are already in the draft.
 * And besides process, given the complexity of the matter and the limited space afforded by a N&N story, I think we should be focusing on summarizing the most important arguments for and against this charter draft in a factual manner, rather than reproducing such vapid PR-like statements at length. (E.g. he starts by praising their own work "a vital step toward a more decentralized, diverse, equitable, community-driven, and resilient Wikimedia ecosystem" - I mean yes, these would all be good things, but what are the specific reasons why should our readers believe that this charter actually achieves that?)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bluerasberry asked me directly for a comment for the article, so I gave him one. He subsequently went offline for a few days, and as it was nearing publication time, I shared it with Bri instead. Obviously I didn't ask for it to be featured at any greater length than the comments of others. My comment was not particularly about this charter text, but about a charter as a means to decentralization and greater community empowerment in general (hence the highlighting of the "try again" option), the premise of which seems to have been questioned by the WMF board liaisons' letter.Pharos (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying that this may have been unsolicited only from Bri's perspective. (In that case it might have been a good idea to mention that context when contacting him.)
 * And I suppose that re-reading I do see some more concrete arguments especially when read in context with some other comments that we may include (e.g. this unique opportunity for change will fade away without your continued voice). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a story that is both important and difficult to write, which may be a reason why it is still a very unfinished draft right now. While Bluerasberry got us started with some good material earlier this month, he hasn't edited since June 26; there also doesn't seem to have been a followup on SJ's June 25 comment above.

To help move this forward, some thoughts on how we may want to approach this (speaking as a Wikimedian who has not followed the charter process closely over the last couple of years and is not among the small subset of the volunteer community who was eligible to attend the above mentioned summit where apparently a lot of important recent discussions about the draft took place - both of which I think is also true for the vast majority of our readers).

I think it would be great to be able to read: Not sure how fully we can achieve these goals without delaying this Signpost issue further. But Bluerasberry appears to have already made some headway re 3. in the draft, and also had covered some other aspects in the previous N&N (in a story somewhat prematurely titled "Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification begins"). I think we can and should crib from that previous liberally at the risk of some repetition (e.g. Risker's comment there seems worth repeating to explain why and for what purpose the vote is being held now). However, it also left some clarity to be desired (e.g. it created the impression that WMDE might be opposed the latest version, whereas Andreas has since informed us above that it has actually thrown its weight behind it.)
 * 1) A brief, non-exhaustive recap of the history of this effort (many folks might not have heard of it since it was first announced in, or not at all).
 * 2) A brief, non-exhaustive list of the most important concrete changes that the charter might bring, to help readers decide whether they should be interested in spending more time into looking into this at all (keeping in mind that the vast majority of them will probably not have done so for the past several years while all the drafting and deliberation was ongoing among the small part of the movement engaged with that effort).
 * 3) A summary of the most important arguments that have been put forward for and against the charter, in its most recent form that is now the topic of the vote (in a factual manner, as mentioned above, and steering clear of vacuous opinions like "it is awesome because it will make things super equitable" or "it is terrible because it will make things super inequitable"). I think we should be interested in informed views from the editing community in the sense of volunteers who are not (primarily) involved in formal movement organizations, both because they will not have been represented at the summit and because there are apparently concerns (not sure how accurate) that the charter may reduce the influence of the editing community (or communities), see e.g. Charter rules over all Wikimedia project policies above.
 * 4) Ideally, 3. should be accompanied by informing our readers of the interests (and possibly conflicts of interests) that may drive various movement actors who have proferred these arguments. To pick one that may be obvious to many but not all readers (and thus still worth pointing out), the WMF would appear to see a significant decrease in power from the charter in some areas (not that should be an excuse to dismiss the concerns listed in the WMF board liaisons' letter). But also, I understand that WMDE might have a lot to gain financially from the (even if it does apparently not include everything the chapter argued for in this "Special report" we gave them room for in 2022, where btw we could also have done a better job of informing readers about the underlying financial interests).

I can take a stab at some of that later today (PDT), but should also finish up RR (one of the other items holding up this issue). JPxG please give note how much expect to work on this too, and when. (Bri said he is out for today.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @HaeB. Note that there are a couple of related items in the Kurier. In addition to the main story in the left-hand column with the WMDE note at the bottom WMDE first announced its shift in stance on 17 June in the right-hand column of the Kurier. Andreas JN 466 07:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we have missed anything or you have any other comment please let us know! Best, Andreas JN 466 07:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Germany as the second largest movement entity endorses the Charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees That's okayish. There is no legal entity called “Wikimedia Germany”, usually I go with “Wikimedia Deutschland (Germany)”. Beyond the own endorsement of the charter, the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland asks the WMF BoT to also ratify the charter (i.e., not to follow the recommendations of the two liaisons). Maybe the latter is worth an addition. — “Represented so far: Germany and Central/Eastern Europe”, afaics, Poland has added their scores. Best, Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) PS:


 * Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look! Apropos, I went through some material already but won't get to complete this tonight; also we haven't yet heard back from JPxG and I would like to avoid duplicate effort while jumping late into the breach here, in case he wanted to spend time on this too. Relatedly, I would suggest we do not need to invite lots of heavily interested parties here to massage the Sigpost's editorial process that late.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to figure out what a good and responsible article on this looks like, which I think will likely be the main undertaking of this issue (the rest of everything seems pretty well put-together at this point). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(OD) I really think we need to do a good fairly *short* section on the charter. Not to write something on what may be the key step in movement governance would be journalistic malpractice. Writing a long piece with long quotes would just continue the major problem with the charter and the process. It's been too wordy without saying anything solid or operationally clear. We desperately need something that real people can understand without an overdose of jargon and hedging. So let's just be clear and short. I really like HaeB's 4 points above. The key points, within that framewark that I'd emphasize Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's broad agreement that something should be done to decentralize some WMF functions, which will take some power, some control over money, and even leadership away from the WMF and give it to the Global Council.
 * But key details are missing.
 * If it's supposed to be an operation document, it's very poorly written.
 * The WMF board would have to approve the charter and is being advised not to approve, so the charter is not likely to pass as is.
 * There will be power shifts within the community (that's the whole point), likely favoring country chapters, pretty much leaving out the online language version communities.
 * Diversity *guarantees* are essentially absent
 * The bright side is that comments are being accepted with votes.
 * Since the voting issue is likely "not this version", the important thing the community can do is vote and give brief practical comments.

Assistance requested - Wikimedia Foundation board elections
I need anyone but me to cover the meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024 because I am standing as a candidate.

I covered this in the past, and I would not want anyone to expect me to do it this time because I have a conflict.
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/In_focus
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Op-Ed

Some other reporting
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/News_and_notes
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/Election_guide
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/Discussion_report
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-09-26/News_and_notes

Here are what I think are all the important dates to know
 * campaign period June 25, 2024―August 26, 2024
 * Conversation with the Candidates (panel interview) August 2024
 * Vote launches September 3, 2024 at 00:01 UTC
 * Vote closes September 17, 2024 at 23:59

Some of this is relevant in the next issue.

For questions and to get comment, ask meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections committee.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added a separate section with a list of candidates and links to the community questions the candidates have now answered to N&N. (I've incorporated the existing brief note from HaeB.) The page is getting rather long though. I wonder if we should be put Smallbones' section on the movement charter (thank you!!!) on a separate page, as a Special report. Andreas JN 466 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw Andreas's addition and liked it. I'm not against the whatchamacallit being a Special Report. It should work just like that old cross your heart thingee - just lift and separate. But I do think we should publish, certainly before the fireworks start! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Normandy
I don't claim to be an expert on military history, but I see some potential errors in the description of the invasion of Normandy. If this is important enough to go over, let me know, otherwise I'm probably not going to invest more time in it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Another obituary
User:Salazarov, an administrator on the Uzbek Wikipedia, has apparently passed away. I think it would be appropriate to run an obituary, but I will not be able to write this one, as I will be on vacation. I would appreciate anyone else who wrote an obituary for them. I believe there is precedent for publishing an obituary with multiple people in it in the Signpost. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @QuicoleJR Hello, I'll try to write one real quick.
 * Sorry for being so late at replying, by the way... Oltrepier (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done! Just so you know, I've included you in the writing credits, as well, since I used your short obituary on Salazarov as a reference. Oltrepier (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you very much, @Oltrepier! Really appreciate it. N ataev  talk 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

20:9 publishing deadline
The publishing deadline is currently set to Friday morning Pacific Time. Is this correct? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For those who don't have the deadline template on their watchlist: JPxG has since moved it one day to Saturday morning Pacific time (18:00 UTC). Let's hope it is becoming more reliable again after the timing dysfunctions of the last few issues. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be offline today, good luck with the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to resume the larger conversation about deadlines from earlier this year, as things have clearly gone (even more) off the rails since then. (There needs to be someone who takes responsibility for setting these and makes sure they are meaningful, shepherding things towards the finish line, and for most of the Signpost's two-decade history that has been the editor-in-chief. Of course others can and should help too, and several of us have done so for the last few issues, including myself.)
 * But for now let's focus on getting this issue out. Apart from the big item in N&N that I and others are trying to get unstuck (see above), there are still various other loose ends in N&N that folks could help tie up, see below. And I should have R&R up in publishable form by 21:00 UTC today.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think an issue lies in developing skeletons into full pieces. The submissions page has a lot of potential that needs to be written up. When drafting Kalloor and Madonna, most of my time was spent making notes of the discussions and researching policy, with the actual writing process taking a couple of hours. Kalloor would've fit in the Discussion report column, at what stage could I be added to the Discussion report row in the table on Wikipedia Signpost/About? I'd like to collaborate with editors, so if I were designated as the Discussion report man, they would know I enjoy it as my "speciality". On the submission page, a message like: "If you need help with a discussion report, please ping Svampesky." might also help too. Svampesky  ( talk ) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just quickly: I think you should feel free to take up that empty position as the regular writer of the Discussion Report! Just be aware that this is a beat reporting position, so to speak - the Discussion Report section is generally meant to provide "a summary of the most significant ongoing discussions and polls of community-wide relevance", rather than digging deeply into a specific non-current topic of particular interest, see Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Content_guidance (also click "Resources" there for the sources that should usually be checked to ensure that these "most significant" items are covered). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, but I think I'd be in the deep end and become a massive liability in terms of reporting on contentious topics. I think my role in The Signpost is best as peculiarity writer, or something. If On the bright side could be renamed to Peculiarities (various columns) or Peculiarity writer, I'd feel comfortable being added there. But it's not a big deal if not! Svampesky  ( talk ) 23:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is good. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Someone else do it, I don't want to be the (self declared) peculiarity writer. It feels like I've started a micronation and given myself a self-styled title. I think I have three good ideas, so I'll be good for the next three issues.
 * Query 1 Because my pieces are innocuous, can I bypass the submission desk and publish it straight to 'Next issue', to save time? (I'm not bypassing the EiC approval, so will still need the final approval)
 * Query 2 On comedy and Non-discrimination policy. It's generally accepted for someone to make jokes about groups that they are apart of, and this is a common feature of British humour. Would it be acceptable for me to write jokes about British people? Do I clearly state at the outset that I am British? The jokes are all in very good-taste, the only issue might be non-Brits getting second-hand-pseudo-offended on our behalf... Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The above estimate was too optimistic, but I should be able to get back to this soon and wrap it up in about three hours from now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good and cool. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 03:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

20:9 Cobwebs
I do (finally) think this should be published, pretty much as is. I will pre-publication make a comment, in the comment section, featuring Mikhail Bulgakov's dictum "Manuscripts don't burn", since this story gives a minor example where the dictum is incorrect. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

20:9 column designation
There are two excellent opinion pieces and an interesting tech report in the submissions, which will make a varied issue if all three are included. There might be an issue with the columns. I'm getting a fellow Wikipedian to proofread my Discussion report, to not cause issues as it touches on a contentious topic. It will be submitted by the deadline. Here are my thoughts:
 * Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion by
 * Op-ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections by
 * Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna by
 * Technology report: Maintaining ru.WP in the face of a shortage of admins by

Which is more appropriate for the op-ed column and which is better suited for the opinion column? My initial thought is that the WMF BoT is an op-ed, and Etika is an opinion. Svampesky ( talk ) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Svampesky I don't know enough about either Etika or how the Board of Trustees works to have a proper opinion on those articles, but I would say you're right about their respective categories. On the other hand, the "Technology report" looks pretty promising!
 * Ultimately, though, I think we need @JPxG's view on those articles before publishing them. Oltrepier (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If (or when) there is a difference between "Opinion" and "Op-ed" it is that Op-ed is more of an independent view, Opinion is more the opinion of The Signpost, but this is more of an old-fashioned distinction that's not usually relevant on The Signpost. In this case "Why you should not vote..." should be made clear that it's not necessarily the broadly supported view of most Signposters. The first reason is that we have never endorsed candidates in election or made other election recommendations (as a newspaper). If we ever want to break that rule, it sure as hell should not be for "don't vote". So it should be in "Op-ed" with a classic disclaimer up top, e.g.
 * This article gives the opinion of its author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of The Signpost or of other Wikipedians.


 * That said - the piece seems to have 3 major points. The main one, that we need to have international participation in governence in the Wikipedia movement beyond North America and Europe, is actually a mainstream view, but perhaps honored more in its absence than in its realization. The 2 other major points seem to be that the WMF is the cause of this, which I disagree with (look to yourselves Wikipedia voters!), and the third that perhaps we can tinker with the voting mechanism (sure, why not?). So I can definitely see publishing this - it's not really a call for a voting boycott. We need to have a wide range of community opinion here. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 07:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The ruwiki story seems a better fit for In Focus than Tech Report, imo. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good analysis of the piece, and yes, we do need a wide range of community opinion, which this op-ed will hopefully start? Philip Kopetzky (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see it being the banger of the issue, Focus seems a more appropriate column. Svampesky  ( talk ) 16:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the date of the next Signpost issue? Isn't this now? MBH (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

20:9 Humour
I don't get the joke. Svampesky ( talk ) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it something about a draft beer being in the Draft: space? Svampesky  ( talk ) 13:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I sent it to my dad and he laughed. Support to publication. Svampesky  ( talk ) 16:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

20:9 Recent research
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I really am not sure where we are on deadlines these days and am also still spending time to help unblock N&N (see above), but I should have R&R publishable by 21:00 UTC today. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Might still add some bits, but copyedits are welcome already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

20:9 News and notes
''Moved one comment to the existing section above:. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

To keep track: I since wrote up one of the unfinished items (board elections). Another big one (movement charter) still needs a lot of work, see above, and some others are in need of a bit of polishing. And if someone has a moment, this ("Changes to User Groups recognition process") seems worth covering as a brief item.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's getting near time to go to the beach and to celebrate the holiday in general, so I put me write of the Global Charter mess in and will correct the links, etc. for awhile. Do you want your initials on this? There should certainly be some remark (maybe only here?) of thanks for collecting all the quotes. There wasn't room for them all. In 30 minutes or so (after my correction) people should feel free to correct my facts, or any serious mistake. Please don't mumble or be mealy-mouthed about it though. There's been enough of that in the Global charter drafting to last me for a few centuries.  Be bold! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After that, if nobody minds my use of the Signpost's voice, I'll wish our readers happy holidays and probably link to songs like Oh! Canada, Stars and Stripes Forever, some dry wit for the UK, La Marseilles (sp?), and maybe Internationale for everybody else. Happy Holidays. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

20:9 Obituary
I've recently found out that Hyacinth, an admin, passed away last December. See his talk page and his obituary on the deceased Wikipedians page. Graham87 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Graham87 I think we're just about to publish the issue, but I'll remember to write an obituary for him next time around. Thank you for flagging it, and condolences to his loved ones. Oltrepier (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obits are pretty simple to put together and there is time to have one in this issue. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPxG You're right, and I've written one just now.
 * Just so you know, I've given you writing credits, as well, since you reported the news first! Oltrepier (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I found another, and have incorporated it. I think this one is ready. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

English fundraising community collaboration
Hi,

We just launched the community collaboration page for the English banner fundraising campaign and I was wondering if you want to add a paragraph on it in next issue's N&N? The text I posted to the VPWMF is below and could be reused for this. Tagging @Jayen466 who might have an interest. Grüsse, Julia

Dear all,

We would like to share with you the community collaboration page around the English fundraising banner campaign 2024. This page is for volunteers to learn about fundraising and share ideas for how we can improve the 2024 English fundraising campaign together. On this page you'll have messaging examples and spaces for collaboration, where you can share your ideas for how we can improve the next campaign together.

The fundraising banner pre-tests phase on English Wikipedia starts in mid-July with a few technical tests, using messaging that was created with the community during the last campaign. We will regularly update the collaboration page with new messaging ideas and updates on testing and campaign plans as we prepare for the main campaign that will launch at the end of November.

Generally, during the pre-tests and the campaign, you can contact us:


 * On the community collaboration page
 * At an in-person event (see more details on the collaboration page)
 * On the talk page of the fundraising team
 * If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
 * If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Best wishes, Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Julia!
 * User:JPxG, I've copied the above into N&N, with a brief intro and links to past coverage. Andreas JN 466 12:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks - just as a clerical note, please use the suggestions page next time which is intended for such posts; see the header of this talk page (which is already a bit unwieldy with on-topic posts).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

New project
I added an "in brief" item to News and Notes announcing that a new Wikipedia has been created in the Mandailing language. I would appreciate some help with copy-editing. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Improving The Signpost
Firstly, regarding deadlines, I believe a significant shortcoming of The Signpost is that the editors themselves set the deadlines. There is a reason why teachers set the deadlines for students. It would be preferable if an uninvolved editor were responsible for setting these deadlines. I'm looking forward to contributing to future issues, and my hope is that The Signpost becomes a periodical, published on a regular schedule (such as on the 1st and 15th of each month). Readers know when to expect the new issue, and subscribers can look forward to their subscription template being updated on those two days. Contributors will also know these deadlines and work to them for their submissions.

Secondly, we should take further measures to boost morale. I suggest featuring a piece on the Main page (possibly a big suggestion, but I'm throwing it out there). This can be a new one or one from the archives. I don't know how the main page works (at all), I strongly oppose the idea of editors nominating their own articles, or anyone affiliated with The Signpost getting involved in this. Svampesky ( talk ) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Let's say you are in charge of 'the deadine'. What happens if the DEADLINE arrives, and half the articles aren't copy edited? Do you publish anyway? Do you sack the writers and hire new ones at the very competitive rate of 0$/hour? Do you demote them?
 * We're volunteers here, the Signpost isn't an assignment.
 * &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a critic, but it was more about boosting morale. During my time as a reader, I wasn't particularly aware of The Signpost. I try to write my pieces for those outside the Wikipedia community. If we, as a community, collaborate to showcase our work, it may encourage others to participate for the deadlines. Perhaps I'm being overly ambitious... I think the Main page integration is something we should work towards. Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives, it seems that The Signpost used to be published on a regular schedule. What was the atmosphere like back then? In 2019, for example, it was published on the last day of each month. Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It kind of was, and it kind of wasn't. I am glad you mentioned this, because otherwise it would be another useless piece of information stuck in my head and of no use to anybody, which may be of some interest now. Some months ago I was going through the old revisions of the main Signpost page (to extract the subheadings out and store them in the module, which had previously just been lost forever after the page was overwritten each issue). Well, I figured I could just get a list of publication dates, then take the largest diff for each day, and then that would be that day's issue -- but not in the slightest. In reality, they seem to have almost all been somewhat late, ranging from one day to several days (the "date" of publication, i.e. the part of the URL that has the datestamp in it, only occasionally being the actual day on which an issue was published back in the days before SPS.js). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the broader issue of publishing intervals, I wrote about it at some length in Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_team; there's even a big graph of publication intervals over time. Basically, there was a weekly publication schedule from '05 through '16 or so. During 2016, publication slowed down a bit, and in 2017 it ate shit entirely for several months (there was nothing at all between February and June). The current schedule of publishing every three weeks is, depending on perspective, either a bold step up from running once a month or a cravenly retreat back from running once every two weeks (which we did a fairly adequate job of through '23 and part of '24). I must say, though, publishing every two weeks was quite arduous -- like Headbomb says, it would often be the case that we'd hit deadline and not have any articles. (not just that there was a bunch of stuff that needed copyedit/expansion, there would be straight-up nothing in some of the drafts besides lipsum).
 * At any rate, on the bright side, I think this is one of the fullest issues we've had in a while, in no small part due to some of the more recent additions. I think that if this energy can be sustained, it bodes well for the paper. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll look at all of this later. I'm pleased that these suggestions (including blue-green user links) have not been perceived as the difficult-newbie telling everyone what to do, but I'm still not going to self-declare myself as the Peculiarity writer on the about page. I have several ideas prepared for upcoming issues. If I can write something good, my next piece will focus on the UK politics. An election is happening today, and I plan to write all my political pieces after. I'm not much of a critic, but I can provide suggestions. I have some notes with ideas that could help with engagement. I don't think anyone at The Signpost should get involved with Main page space; instead, we should continue our efforts and wait for an someone uninvolved to suggest it. I can also offer a non-Wikipedian-reader perspective, as I was only mildly aware that The Signpost existed. Are you able to see the page views from logged-out vs logged-in? Svampesky  ( talk ) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just hard to reconcile with the day job sometimes. We all have to juggle work and other commitments along with Signpost deadlines. I actually think we are muddling through quite well at the moment. Andreas  JN 466 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm consolidating all my thoughts here: User:Svampesky/Ideas/Signpost. Please feel free to add it to your watchlist. I prefer not to make too many suggestions outside my userspace. My knowledge is limited on technical restrictions and the time required for implementation. Svampesky  ( talk ) 23:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's get serious about the deadline
We have to have a real deadline in order to Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * let readers know when we a coming out. People want to know when there is new material to read, without checking 2 or 3 times a month
 * let authors know when to actually submit their work. If you don't have a real deadline, people will often wait until just before the time when they think you'll actually publish. In my experience, having a deadline is the only way that newspaper production is organized. It's a waste of contributors' time not having a deadline. If JPxG is going to show up for the first time after the deadline, so too will the submissions, but there won't be any any copyeditors around, or any chance to get early feedback on an article. In short it isn't a production process, it is just chaos. "News" is time dependent. If we want to have news in our newspaper, the news writers have to know when it is going to be published. (I'll have more tomorrow or Wednesday)
 * Just a suggestion, if the eic consistently is 2 days late in publishing, he should just show up 2 days earlier.


 * Support to light a fire under JPxG, who is a very competent EiC. I support The Signpost ' s mission of being the Wikimedia movement's online newspaper. While JPxG performs admirably to support and enhance this mission when active, his first appearance being after the deadline undermines the credibility of The Signpost and its mission. Svampesky  ( talk ) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick comment (as an alum from long ago): You can choose to have releases on a fixed schedule rather than to fixed quality.  Then every issue is guaranteed to have a few easy-to-compile beats, basic stats, and a reminder of where and how to submit or discuss the next issue.  In that case it's fine to have shorter issues published by a broader range of editors comfortable w/ the mechanics of publishing, even if the EiC isn't available.  Experience running the shorter routine issues can be a way to get experience editing.  Complex stories that would benefit from more review can still get pushed to a later issue.  Since the wiki is not paper you can even include teasers pointing readers to drafts in progress if you want public input.
 * And you could choose to, say, color the archives [or even the headers of the updates posted to talk pages :) ] to distinguish routine vs major issues, special editions, &c. – SJ + 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Same. One of the things that has been a problem is that deadline will roll around and there will not be a whole lot ready -- but as Sj says, it's not really the end of the world to put out an issue that doesn't have every possible thing in it. Probably Smallbones is right too, and consistently doing this for a while will stop people from thinking that it will be fine to get stuff in late anyway, and this chicken-egg thing will resolve itself. Well, at any rate: I'll be there. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Technology report
I recently got a pop up on my phone browser (Safari) about night mode on Wikipedia. Major new update for the next Signpost. I'll be working on a different piece for the next issue. Is it possible for the page of the piece automatically turns to night mode, even if the viewer hasn't set it up? That would be best. Svampesky ( talk ) 11:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You can probably use TemplateStyles for this. – SJ + 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Signpost article tagging
It looks like perhaps none of The Signpost articles have been tagged since January. Is there a script that can go through and does this for at least the regular columns? Or maybe it's a problem with Article list maker template, I'm not sure what's going on right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've confirmed tagging has been done, but the list maker is busted. Click newsandnotes at Wikipedia Signpost/Series to see: it doesn't have anything after this year's issue 1. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment you made at the technical talk is correct. Tagging is a manual task that is done usually with SignpostTagger. The actual addition of articles to the database is done automatically when I run Wegweiser, but the tagging is just not happening.
 * At one point, Chris Troutman used to do this, but he has erstwhile been indef-blocked during an intensely stupid drama episode, and does not seem to want to apologize and get unblocked, so I think now nobody is doing it. The bright side is that there is a very big and comprehensive table for all the articles missing tags. It's at Wikipedia Signpost/Technical/Index validation -- there's totals for all of the articles missing tags there as well (ignore the 2009 ones, those are false positives). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Essay
The essay "Reflections on editing and obsession" looks like it sat for over a dozen years unpublished. I'd like to revive it, either as an Essay or as Cobwebs? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought we had cleared all of those out! Yeah, this looks quite good. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of cobwebs, I was fixing some template stuff and found User:Jorgenev/Minors and Wikiproject pornography, from 2011, which is formatted as a Signpost article but doesn't have the draft template or anything on it. It doesn't seem to have ever been published in full. There was a brief mention at Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/News_and_notes but it looks like a bunch of the stuff never made it in. Is this anything? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's over 10 years old. Whatever relevance it ever had is long gone. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion
, should we run the essay Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article instead. I remember this essay from when I joined and I made a newbie error by moving the shortcut around. Is it appropriate for events on Wikipedia from the past couple of days, or is it in poor taste? Svampesky ( talk ) 18:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor fixes
I have fixed the stupid next-issue thing which was requiring us to say "20:9+1" or "issue after 20:9" or whatever -- there's now two templates (Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Issue/Next/Volume and Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Issue/Next/Issue) that compute the vol/issue number for the next issue based on the current issue, date and deadline (without getting choked up on Dec/Jan issues as would happen if you just added one to it). As before, you can click the thing in the Newsroom to automatically open a thread here -- it's just that it will now be the proper issue name and not some stupid gobbledygook. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing that problem! As discussed before, this should help avoid various confusions that have been caused by this in the past. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Crossword
I'm thinking of contributing to the Crossword for the next issue, but Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance lacks the guidance for it. Can I create one or do I need approval? Ca <sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">talk to me!  03:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I guess it's a regular enough feature that we probably ought to have some. Okay, well, rule 1: for God's sake we have to stop using ANI and AFD as answers. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.education.com/worksheet-generator/reading/crossword-puzzle/ can be useful here &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ca <sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">talk to me!  11:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Indian lawsuit
I feel like Wikipedia being brought before the High Court of India in a defamation lawsuit by Asian News International (ANI) is important enough to be a lead story and not a "in brief" item. What do you guys think? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So far as I know there is almost no public information available about the case. On the face of it, the lawsuit seems to be an accusation that a Wikipedia article repeated and cited information from other reliable sources. If you want to spin that out into a larger description with commentary or find additional sources then I support that. You are also welcome to contact Asian News International and ask for comment.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I assumed that there would be more than that for a story like this. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, QuicoleJR. I believe what Bluerasberry said is correct, and have been holding off on developing that item until more news appears, though when I inserted it, it was that it probably would become a major story in the column. BTW this seems to be one of a series of legal appeals to make a court tell the WMF to do something about content in the Wikipedia, without explaining exactly how that's supposed to happen. Would a court even order them to remove content and freeze an article at its current revision? What about other articles that refer to the same situation? For instance, if this court action gains traction, I'm sure it would merit an entry at Censorship of Wikipedia. Not to mention Indo-Asian News Service. Then what? Pursue a game of whack-a-mole and try to use the legal system to erase it from the site, article by article, as it reappears? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The case is listed in the Delhi High Court for its next hearing on August 20.. But "ANI sues Wikipedia" is chuckle-worthy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing has happened a few times in the German Wikipedia. The result was that the WMF was instructed by the court to make sure that a particular statement not reappear in an article. Any instance of non-compliance would incur a fine. And in those cases the statements at issue have not reappeared since.
 * The article in The Hindu is a good source. Andreas JN 466 07:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of German mentions at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. If you know any good sources, you could improve that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

WMF Board votes against ratifying Movement Charter
As expected, the Board has voted 11:1 against ratifying the Movement Charter. The sole dissenting vote came from User:Mike Peel. --Andreas JN 466 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The end of an era ...
Just noticed: The current English fundraising emails have a picture of Lisa rather than Jimbo. Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4. Don't know how long it's been this way. I hadn't looked in a while. --Andreas JN 466 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Lots of new stuff
coming later Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Files for discussion/2024 July 14 Trump photo for Discussion report
 * Also the story of and User:Benpianao800.
 * WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA suggested this and it will be a good one for Discussion report. The talk page has more [] and there's a village pump discussion Village_pump_(policy). User:7804j should be interviewed (e.g. via email) He's started and financed an article translation project and pays the translators. Some very good ideas here, something like paid Wikipedians in residence. But he hadn't thought through everything Wikipedian could find fault with. Lots of good people to interview Rosiestep, Ipigott. Piotrus, etc. But I'll be busy on other things. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smallbones for suggesting a piece on OKA!
 * I think it can be useful to raise visibility on the initiative (which as you pointed out, has raised a lot of strong reactions from the community that I didn't always expect, both good and bad). I'd be happy to do the interview via email or voice/video call, as preferred. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take the Trump photo discussion report. If that's okay? I've not been active on-wiki, per IRL commitments. I think I can make something good in the style of my previous pieces, where I try to explain a little bit to non-Wikipedians. But I'll first have to research the actual image policy, myself! Svampesky  ( talk ) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that whoever does the photo discussion report has at least a little knowledge of US intellectual property law. I saw a lot of erroneous assumptions and interpretations in that discussion, which I skimmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have knowledge on it. I'll make sure to do thorough research on everything. I usually submit my drafts on the day of the deadline, but for this one I'll submit it days before. Svampesky  ( talk ) 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Discussion report
I have started research on policies and related matters for the upcoming 'Discussion report' which will be on. This report will be crafted in the same style as my previous ones, where I clarify Wikipedia guidelines/policy for those unfamiliar with it, while not over-explaining for Wikipeidans (the main audience). In this instance, I'll be detailing the image use policy (which I'll first need to research myself). Svampesky ( talk ) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. By "image use policy" I assume you mean Non-free content. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, when I mentioned "image use policy", I was referring to Wikipedia's general policies on image use. I have since discovered the specific policy relevant, per my research. It's enjoyable to learn about Wikipedia policy 'on the job', but I will ensure this submission is completed several days before the deadline to refine any details. Svampesky  ( talk ) 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Query. I'm reviewing the discussion and making notes on it (there is quite a lot to go through). However, I have observed that participated in the discussion. Could this be a conflict of interest, as he is the one that decides what is and isn't published in The Signpost? If so, my initial thoughts are that JPxG either pre-approves the piece, or has someone else approve it, ensuring that he has no editorial involvement.  Svampesky  ( talk ) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am definitely out of this one, as well as anything about the article, as I decided to try camping out on the talk page with all the AP2 editors during a major ongoing world politics event. Not recommended for the faint of heart. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1235720801. A bot removed the image., how should I proceed? Svampesky  ( talk ) 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no proceeding: we are forced to write an entire article about this specific image and not embed the image in it.
 * The N in WP:NFCC might as well stand for Nationalsozialistische as far as exemptions and clemency go. Rivers of blood have been spilled over this, with the very silly conclusion that no fair-use images can be used outside of article space, ever, for any reason at all. The only thing we can do is come up with some freely-licensed shit, which is not going to be good, because it's not the specific image.
 * In my opinion, it is high time that somebody do something to change this, because it results in completely asinine situations like this one on a regular basis, but that's a 5-month Village Pump RFC that even if passed will have another 4 months of going through Legal. In the meantime I guess we can mspaint something, I don't know. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 23:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I found this when researching for the report, WP:NFEXMP. Would the report fall under this exemption? Svampesky  ( talk ) 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy
I'll complete the write-up for the Signpost later today. I discovered numerous instances across the internet and social media where the discussion was posted. However, the template was placed because This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful.. I'll mention this in my report. I want to keep the report accurate and not inaccurately label what was posted as 'canvassing', especially since there is no evidence that it was even posted on Wikipediocracy. I attempted to contact the site but received no response. Could someone verify whether it was posted, whether it constitutes canvassing, and obtain the necessary permissions to report on posts from the members-only boards? Svampesky ( talk ) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13631 -- in the off-topic forum, so members only (probably because it is about the entire shooting and not just the Wikipedia article). The original post is some guy I don't recognize asking about the NFCC tags saying he's never seen them before -- he links the FfD -- casualdejekyll says it fails NFCC#2, which at the time was true. Hemiauchenia concurs. Casualdejekyll concurs. At the time the image totally was just kind of plopped there, and there wasn't any cited commentary or anything -- so I think they were probably right to say this at the time.
 * People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. Some guy says in his opinion the image is pure propaganda because he's got his fist up. Chatter back and forth for the next page or so. Guy who said it looked like propaganda notes that it's all over the TV the next day, so it really does seem like the most representative picture. Then a couple more people mention tht they've been seeing a ton of news articles about the photo, then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat (that's the subforum it was in after all). I don't think it was really canvassed too hard one way or the other, apart from the simple fact that they mentioned it, and the people there tend to be more liberal than conservative -- but then so do Wikipedia editors, so who really cares? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've completed the writing and I've emailed and spoke with Midsize Jake/Somey. I'm assuming that I would need to obtain permission from every individual poster to include those details (which I agree with). Additionally, the word count is nearly at its limit. I've kept it general, as there is a lot to cover in the whole report anyway. Svampesky  ( talk ) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A newspaper does not need permission to mention stuff that people said on some message board, with the possible exception of message boards at norad.mil or something (and then certainly not from the message board itself). If it's a website open to the public, on which half of our readers probably already have accounts, there isn't even really an ethical issue. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. and then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat is such tabloid drivel. I don't think the report requires this information. The only pertinent detail is that it was posted in the thread, after which the template was placed onto the discussion. Svampesky  ( talk ) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just telling you what happened since you don't have an account, I didn't think 99% of that deserved any mention. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you. I've had all of those conversations in real life for the past week, not really newsworthy! I requested Midsize Jake/Somey to reserve my username to prevent any impersonation, but I don't anticipate using the account. Svampesky  ( talk ) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe it qualifies as 'open to the public'. When I attempted to create an account, my registration was rejected because I was on a VPN at the time. I contacted the support email and was connected to the admin. Svampesky  ( talk ) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't even need permission for that, the government could take them to court to try to stop the publication but theres no point at which they would have to ask for permission. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but the Signpost is not the government; it just tries to play one on Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PPS it is also a newsletter not a newspaper.Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please be advised that this discussion about the putative turning of a stray comment on WPO about Daddy Liberty leading the Secret Service into full-blown canvassing was also mentioned on WPO at 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC). — SashiRolls 🌿 ·    🍥 00:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't accused WPO of canvassing in the report (or at least it wasn't my intention). I said the Template:Not a ballot banner was placed. This banner functions to deter canvassing. I've written Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site dedicated to criticizing and discussing Wikipedia and scrutinizing Wikipedians. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing. Subsequently, I explained the concept of canvassing and concluded the paragraph with Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred. I don't plan on quoting anything from WPO, as the only pertinent detail is that the template was placed onto the discussion because it was posted on WPO, as noted in the edit summary This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful. If anything needs rewording, I think it's only the at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing part. Any suggestions on how to make this clearer? Svampesky  ( talk ) 01:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * WPO is a satirical website, which is at times critical of the various Wikimpedia movements, of poorly written articles, of Wikipedians' sometimes cavalier disrespect for BLP, etc., etc. It is not primarily a site dedicated to, as you put it, "scrutinizing Wikipedians", but you can write whatever you want. As for the Wikipedian obsession with canvassing, it strikes me as a somewhat exaggerated reaction to someone out there in the world pointing in here and laughing at us. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also did not mean to accuse WPO of canvassing, but it seems that this is how others have interpreted my actions, for which I sincerely apologize. casualdejekyll  02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, how about this Special:Diff/1235769644? I've changed it to be less absolute about the intentions behind placement of the banner. Svampesky  ( talk ) 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, I'll maintain that it was prompted by a post on WPO, as indicated in the edit summary. However, I've made it less absolute regarding whether you were actually accusing anyone of canvassing. Svampesky  ( talk ) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what's in the article is basically unimpeachable -- you have done basically nothing beyond mention the existence of the site and the fact that a post was made there, so I don't think there is any basis for complaint, unless somebody is simply malding for an unrelated reason. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You should obviously recuse yourself from any editorial decisions related to WPO, given your very open hostility toward both the website and those who comment there. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've said several times, I do not have any kind of hostility towards the site in general, about which I remain ambivalent; this comment is quite out-of-line and I'd appreciate if you struck it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 04:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You may have made that claim several times, but your commentary on-wiki says otherwise. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 04:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Free articles to anyone interested: it would be nice to have a writer for the deletion report
and others who've mentioned wanting to write something before: WP:ORACLE is back up, I am in the middle of setting the schedule for it to run on the same regular basis as before (and did a bunch of overhauls to the code to fix busted/badly written stuff from before). Anyone who wants to write a deletion report should check out the lsat few months (2024 main page, July / june / may / april / march. I do have a skeleton deletion report from some months ago sitting in the drafts somewhere (with the stuff already prepped and sorted out, just requiring writeups for the actual discussions) but by now I think this is pretty old.

At any rate: the way I'd do deletion reports, when I had those as a regular feature, was to go to the monthly pages, click the column to sort the table by most votes, and by largest AfD size (these tend to give very similar but slightly different results). Typically, the top five or so would include at least something of public interest to the wider editoriat. The general categories I noticed were: Also, sometimes there are noms in the largest-by-volume category that are not actually that big of a controversy or heavily participated-in, they just happened to have some guy who made the world's biggest source analysis table, or two people cussing each other out in deeply-threaded extremely verbose posts for the full runtime of the AfD, or something.
 * "influencer/meme/viral/youtuber/tiktoker thing".
 * "actual politics thing" and "extremely online politics thing" (by 2021 there was already a very blurry distinction between these, and by 2024 I think there is literally none whatsoever)
 * "wiki politics thing" e.g. Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement, a lot of the stuff with "(4th nomination)" will be this
 * "subject which is not inherently wikipolitical, incidentally touches off some kind of recondite wikidrama" (e.g. random articles about tuskegee airmen that just happened to be the location where the gigantic ARS disaster went down... big batch nominations for Olympians/eclipses/geostubs/etc...)
 * "thing which is mentioned on an off-wiki site" (viral twitter stuff mostly)


 * July:
 * Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign
 * Next United Kingdom general election
 * Haliey Welch
 * Age and health concerns of Joe Biden


 * June:
 * Barron Trump (3rd nomination)
 * Vandalism of Stonehenge
 * All Eyes on Rafah
 * Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities


 * May:
 * 2024 Mannheim stabbing
 * 2024 Pune car crash
 * Tamil genocide
 * List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors


 * April:
 * Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello
 * Eric Hovde
 * List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (3rd nomination)
 * 2024 New Jersey earthquake


 * March:
 * Where is Kate?
 * Where is Kate? (2nd nomination)
 * Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)
 * List of British Airways destinations
 * StoneToss (3rd nomination)
 * Geez Louise -- "Where is Kate?" has three separate AfDs, all in the same month, all of which are in the top six for that month individually. I ran the Quarry sql to reevaluate the biggest thousand AfDs of all time from 2005 to now, and apparently the third one is #13 by itself (203k). If you combine them all, it's, uh: bytes, which -- holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever, second only to that Communism one a couple years back. The article about that one was pretty well-received, so this Kate thing might be something, if anyone wants to take it.

<b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * amused to see Eric Hovde there; his ads have been plaguing my youtube viewing for so long. i've got stuff i'm trying to get myself to work on so i don't want to start something new, but if someone starts this deletion report i'm happy to help expand & copyedit. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPxG Unfortunately, I won't be able to help this time around (apologies for saying this just now, by the way), but thank you for the heads up, still! Oltrepier (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at drafting something for 'Where is Kate?' after I finish the Trump photo for the upcoming issue. I vaguely recall the article on her Mother's Day photo. There's a lot of policy around BLP, NOTNEWS and possibly FRINGE that can be discussed. For this one, it would be wise to not name any editors, as both of my previous pieces have been shared outside of Wikipedia; and they might not be familiar with WP:AGF. We can discuss at the appropriate time how we can best protect editors, while being a newspaper that reports on news about Wikipedia. In addition, I would prefer not to have the editors names in the text of the report as that would be indexed by Google. Those are just my thoughts, so I'll leave the final decision to you. I will also need access to the deleted article. I don't think it would be best to restore the article and that could reopen old wounds and was deemed a BLP violation, so is there a way of you giving me access to the all of the revisions for only for that article? Svampesky  ( talk ) 11:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Woot! I think I remember you saying something about this one so I was hoping you'd like the topic. I can send you the deleted text of the most-complete version, but there are about nine hundred deleted revisions, and no way to send multiple of them automatically. I am trying to find out what the actual procedure is on temporary undeletion (I am hearing stuff can be undeleted into userspace but I think this would fill the logs with crap -- the redirect is fully protected so maybe it is harmless to just restore it there for a few days. I will find out. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, this was really dumb: the third AfD closed delete, someone recreated a redirect, it got deleted with the claim there was consensus against having a redirect, but then it was recreated again and then brought to RfD where overwhelming consensus was to keep, all of which put together indicates to me that there was never actually a reason why anybody agreed that it needed to be a redirect with no history. So I have just restored the damn page to where it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where_is_Kate%3F&action=history - I think it should be fine now. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exciting! I remember the Mother's Day photo was back-to-back headlines in the UK for around two weeks. I know the article spoke about a bit more other about conspiracies, and the photo was only a section of it. You will also need to restore the talk page. Is there a reason for that title? It seems in very poor taste. Was that the title for the whole thing or was it moved and that as the final title? Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , quickly on holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever. This is only true if you combine the 'Where is Kate' ones, and don't combine the others. The other top ranking ones have 'Xth nomination', so you would also need to combine those to get a true statistic. Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are a lot of nth nominations at User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest_AfDs. Most of them are spread out across multiple years, though. I don't think any of them are like, three noms back-to-back in the same month. Some of them are kind of weird also (logorrhea notes here):
 * List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination) exists... but (2nd nomination) is just a redirect to it. And the base title is a redlink (maybe they were referrring to this one as the base?
 * ED has an assload, but they are spread out across like three years: Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) (the big one) is 2008-05, but Encyclopedia Dramatica is 2004-12, Encyclopædia Dramatica is 2005-06, Encyclopaedia Dramatica is 2006-03, Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is 2006-06 (after it is 3rd (speedy keep 2008-07), 4th (speedy keep 2009-02), 5th (speedy keep 2011-01), and 6th (joke nom from Fools '17). Even across all these noms, no two happened within the same month (or even consecutive months).
 * <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Query. According to Where is Kate?-AfD3, the article underwent a 'deletion review'. I'm assuming that's the same as Deletion review (as the linked discussion is a subpage of 'Wikipedia:Deletion review'), so was the article deleted at some point? The linked deletion review closed with 'no consensus'. Does that mean it was subsequently restored? Sorry for the confusion, but there is a lot of of text to review. I'll come back to all of this and I won't look at this again until after I've completed the Trump photo for the upcoming issue (which also has a lot of text to go though; and I like learning about Wikipedia policy 'on the job'!). Svampesky  ( talk ) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting something that I idly realized just now -- this is more of a cute factoid than anything else, I don't know if it will fit in what you're writing -- but the current size of the FfD section for that image is currently 204,174 characters/bytes. The image itself is 18,336 bytes, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. This is really unusual, since files tend to be much larger (hundreds of kilobytes, into megabytes) -- it's just that this file is abnormally tiny due to the extreme image downscaling done for NFCC purposes. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll review this later when complete the writing. The cover image should be the photo that's being discussed, intentionally stretched to maintain its low quality to convey how Wikipedia downscales images. Svampesky  ( talk ) 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. I'm glad that people who enjoy meaningless trivia have infiltrated with The Signpost. I have included this. I'm going to complete the write-up now and then email it to my friend to verify the accuracy copyright law. Additionally, I'm awaiting response to emails to ensure there's no libellous information in the report or its page history. I can put it on Google Drive, or something. so you can see it on the 'submission deadline', but it will definitely be sorted by the publication deadline. This was a big write up, and I'm pleased with myself that I got it all done in five days! Svampesky  ( talk ) 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Related – Republicans pounce
This might go well with our recent headline Recent research piece on liberal bias on Wikipedia, the mention of Conservapedia in the current In the media, and related media coverage that doesn't have a mention in In the media, but could: Daily Caller (yeah I know) and National Post. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Republicans pounce

20:10 Recent research
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering its fourteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Obituary
User:JamesR -- just noticed this. :( <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Outage last night?
Last night I had some problems saving edits. I never know what this is about, but in almost 20 years on Wiki, I've only noticed this type of problem say 2-4 times. This morning I noticed news that there had been major problems around the world with airports, health care, etc. apparently caused by an update from a cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/19/business/global-tech-outage If there is any connection with Wikipedia, I'd guess we should lead with it in News and notes. But I don't know the techies to talk to, etc.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No it was due to T370304. Master s4 was being exhausted. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks . So maybe we should have a mention that CrowdStrike wasn't the problem? BTW at https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnk4jdwp49et Elon Musk says CrowdStrike was 'Biggest IT fail ever' says Musk. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP says 2024 CrowdStrike incident. Section on conspiracy theories coming in 3... 2... 1... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a good section on that talk page Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident with several trustworthy Wikipedians commenting. BTW, we've been scooped by In the news on the main page, as well as by a very large Wikipedia article.
 * We should go over how to react to a conspiracy theory. I see 3 possible reactions:
 * Ignore it. But if the theory is already out there, this won't help.
 * A very short story, completely shooting down the conspiracy theory. The shoot down could include quotes from very trustworthy figures of authority.
 * A long story, completely ripping apart the theory, examining every detail.
 * Any of these strategies could actually increase the spread of the theory. But if we do it right it would be a service to our readers. I tend to favor a very short story. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Posted my Book review
about Stephen Harrison's The Editors, something I've been working on for a long time. It's not really ready for a final copy editing, but feel free to get started on it, I've left the arbitrary breaks in which always makes it easier for me to edit.

I suspect that this might be controversial, since there is another draft of this by another author. I've tried to get some private feedback, but been mostly unsuccessful. Feel free to comment here. I do think now is the time to publish it, since there are interviews with Harrison coming out - see In the media. And I'm almost sure there will be other reviews soon as well. Wikipedians should get their first review of this from another Wikipedian.

I'll note that in News and notes on the Global council charter, it looks like we're pushing something, but it's just not ready to push yet. I'll suggest we tone it down, it just has too many holes in it still.

I hope to finish up In the media tonight. If I have time tomorrow, I might do a Disinfo report on a topic I first heard about today. It's the type of thing that offends the hell out of me - the type of topic that I usually find easy to write about. It should be short and clean and have a happy ending.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Uh, hello? This looks like rather uncollegial behavior, considering the other review that was submitted and discussed transparently on the submissions page. What are your arguments for giving your own review preference instead?
 * As discussed there, the marketing material for the book (on Amazon and on the author's homepage) already touts a blurb by you (from an earlier Signpost story about a previous version of what became the book). That might be an argument for giving other views room first.
 * I do think now is the time to publish it - as discussed on the submissions page: From a book marketing perspective this might be preferable, as 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 a review only once they will actually be able to acquire and read the book themselves.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I do understand that this situation is unusual, perhaps unique, for The Signpost. As I wrote above, I've asked around on how to handle this. More than once. The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens." I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. But I don't think it's a good idea to submit an unfinished draft well ahead of time. I also think it would be unusual to post something like "I've got dibs on this story". I've been following this story for over three years and was really looking forward to writing the review. When the other review was submitted, I contacted  to see whether we could write a joint review. After seeing my (fairly weak) attempt to write a joint review using some of her material, she thought that our views were too far apart to do that. I agree with that assessment. She also suggested that The Signpost might print both the reviews, which I don't expect to happen.
 * What are your arguments for giving your own review preference? It's pretty simply really, I think the other review missed some important points and included other things that were just distractions. Yes, I'm biased. Ultimately it will be up to the editor-in-chief to decide which review he wants to publish. But absent any guidance, I though at least I should submit my review. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13. I wouldn't see any purpose to a Signpost policy saying that we have to wait until the public has received books before we publish a review. Pre-publication reviews are standard practice essentially everywhere (at least in the US) as far as I can tell.


 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I find both reviews to be excellent. However, I would like to address one point: The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens.". This seems misleading, as you didn't submit it in the conventional manner on the submissions page; instead, you posted it directly to the next issue (Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review). My opinion is that you may have unfairly used your Editor-in-chief-emeritus status to prioritize your submission over 's submission. However, it's down to ; these are just my thoughts. Svampesky  ( talk ) 14:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still believe both reviews are excellently written; however, I have striked out my comment as, upon closer examination, it appears they could function as promotional material for the book, contrary to WP:NOTPROMO. Svampesky  ( talk ) 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I submitted the article in the same way I've submitted every article I've written in the last 4+ years. Then I posted this thread here, to make sure that everybody knows what is happening. It's completely transparent. We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page, he just posts it in the usual place. If JPxG want to replace my review with the other, he is free to do so, and he'll find it easier to do since I set up the page.
 * I do think that some folks are misinterpreting what a book review is. The format is pretty standard throughout the media, e.g. most book reviews are favorable, simply because most people won't write a review about books they don't think their audience will be interested in. And prepublication reviews are the industry standard because it's a convenience to the reader to be able to order a book when it's first coming out, rather than wait until it's old news. And book reviews are clearly opinion pieces, they always give something of the opinion of the reviewer. Let's not try to make our book reviews into something they've never been intended to be. Since the question of promotion has come up, I'll state (as is in the review) that I received an electronic copy of the book (which I can't sell or even give away - it has my name embedded in it) and that I'm an email acquaintance of Harrison, though we've never met in person. For example, in writing up "In the media", I might ask him about the meaning of a specific sentence. I do admire his writing and reporting style - but that is already in my review. I haven't and won't receive any payment or favors for the review. It's just a straightforward view about what I think of the book. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's completely transparent. Dude. You say above that I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. Yet when Susan submitted hers in May (in a thread that you were definitely aware of, considering that you emailed me about it), and several folks weighed in - Novem Linguae, Bluerasberry, myself and JPxG - you didn't say a word there. Not even when JPxG stated his intention there to run this alongside the release of the book, in contrast to all the arguments you are suddenly bringing up now to run it when the book is not available to the general public yet. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13 - yes, I already said above that pre-orders exist and that driving up their numbers is considered an important book marketing technique. rather than wait until it's old news - surely you don't claim that this book is so ephemeral that it will be no longer of general interest in late August? As for industry standard, lots of professional publications run book reviews weeks or even years after publication.
 * We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page - in case it has escaped your attention for the last decade or so: RR 1) is always announced on this page a few days in advance of the deadline, and 2) maintains a public to-do list of papers to review, where folks are invited to sign up as reviewers. The latter is exactly to avoid the kind of situation that you are creating here.
 * Since the question of promotion has come up - Nobody suggested you were getting material favors for this favorable review. But optimizing the timing (or content) of a Signpost story for the goal of helping an author we admire to maximize their book sales would be problematic too. Our readers' interest should come first. And again, the book's marketing material on Amazon and on Harrison's website already contain a (rather fawning) blurb by you, attributed to the Signpost no less.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just my 2¢ The review should be published after the book's release and after its promotional period. The author sending an advanced copy of the book to Wikipedia for a review could function as promotional material for it. The book is a novelization of Wikipedia; should it be posted beforehand, it could be utilized as a promotional tool by the author, who might proclaim, We have the Wikipedia stamp of approval!, in the lead-up/first sales week in order to boost sales of the book. To avoid this, the review ought to be published at least one week after the book's release, once the initial publicity phase has subsided. To add, this would not be the case for a book not about Wikipedia. I'd see it as fine if the book was a novelisation of Twitter. Svampesky  ( talk ) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any reason to redefine that standard practices of book reviewing just for the Signpost. And if Wikipedians choose to buy a dozen or so books a few weeks before they otherwise would have -so what? This is just not a case of promotion. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * standard practices of book reviewing - as I said above, it's entirely standard to publish book reviews after (or on) a book's publication date. If you don't believe me, check (as a non-cherry picked example) this LitHub list from two days ago: "5 Book Reviews You Need to Read This Week", from The New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic and the Washington Post. All five were published on or after the reviewed book's publication date, none in advance.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Epic hrrmery -- some five hours to publication
I have been looking over the stuff in the newsroom every few hours: I note we are missing a couple of things, particularly the discussion report. any update on that?

At any rate, I have stuff I would like to write, and will not get to -- so it goes. I plan to run it with whatever we've got in those few hours, and if the issue ends up being very thin gruel, I suppose it can just be the thin-gruel issue. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I finished it yesterday, but didn't want any inaccuracies in the page history. It will be published by the deadline. See Special:Diff/1235504982. I do all my Wikipedia writing at roughly the same time in the evening (which is now). Svampesky  ( talk ) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder for folks who would like to help out with copyediting that you can go through the list at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom and look for those that are marked "Ready for copyedit".
 * The top story in News and notes still looks very drafty -  is any of you planning to wrap it up before the deadline? (to ping the three folks currently listed as authors there)
 * As usual, I'm aiming to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have the top story in form which appears publishable but anyone else can edit it further.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump_raised_fist_photo @ Svampesky  ( talk ) 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, it's almost midnight here so I guess this is a tomorrow task. Imagine being only one day late. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

20:10 Disinformation report
Should I/Bluerasberry move this from drafts to next issue? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I continue to support Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report but would like anyone else to add their support to publication following any review, critique, or request for additional care if needed. The piece is submitted at Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions.
 * I think this is one of the most interesting pieces ever submitted to Signpost in terms of this being an evidence-supported narrative of how shenanigans significantly contributed to the establishment of United States legislation, court precedent, medical policy, and political platforms. As this is a transgender political piece, getting this out now in election season would be timely.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My disinfo report I talked about above is ready. It's in my standard disinfo report style, so I'd usually put in here. But it looks like Special report is open, I'll post it there and let other people switch things around if necessary. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed election announcement text
I am standing as a candidate in the next WMF board election. I was also previously on the election commission for two terms, and wrote about elections here in The Signpost in the past, so covering this is a bit my beat.

I believe the following is news worth reporting now, but I would request that anyone else review this and consider posting it or anything else. I suggest this as a section in Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes.

Thanks for considering.

-- The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Election is the world's most important Internet election will run 3-17 September 2024. Wikimedia editors will choose 4 of the 12 trustees to serve on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Duties of trustees include reviewing the progress of the Wikimedia Foundation CEO, and deciding to approve or reject the plan and budget which the CEO presents to the board every year. Mark your calendar, and prepare yourself and your colleagues to vote.
 * Wikimedia Foundation Elections, 3-17 September 2024

On 1 July, candidates finalized their answers to questions which the election committee presented to them. Read the questions and answers and consider discussing at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024 or wherever concerned Wikimedia voters convene. ---  Bluerasberry   (talk)  20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)