Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

The Signpost Feedback

Please use this page for general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints.

• If you have a story suggestion, please add it to our Suggestions page.
• If you have an article-specific comment, please add it to that article's talk page.
• If you have an article or report to be published, please list it at the Newsroom.
• If your message is urgent, please contact the editor HaeB directly or try to find a Signpost regular in the IRC channel #wikisignpost ^connect.
• For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.

Nice work, everyone

Congrats to the editors who worked so hard for the publication this week, especially to HaeB. Methinks many readers are quite unaware of the effort that goes into creating a smooth reading experience, which, unfortunately, is just as it should be.

May I stick my neck out and be bold on a few matters? Over the next few weeks, we will need to make a few decisions.

• Running the show. I have no idea whether HaeB, or Phoebe, or anyone else is willing to take responsibility for getting The Signpost to the public every week as Managing Editor on a long-term basis. Or whether some of the regulars would prefer to share the task, rotating it from time to time. Or whether it's time to establish a Committee of active, regular contributors who are willing to keep the ship afloat and manage its evolution. And if such a Committee were established, how formal its membership and constitution would need to be. In my view, it would be a relief to avoid electoral drama, and to make membership dependent on a willingness to perform a particular role. At first glance, the following roles may be desirable, in addition to those appearing in the table of regular and back-up authors for the various sections:
  • Managing editor (whether fixed or rotating among the willing)
  • Reviews and special features coordinator (may be the above person)
  • Copy-editors (we really need a team of editors who will agree to be available to polish it up at the last minute, perhaps by planned rotation to give flexibility)
  • Interwiki liaison officer(s) to forge links with the equivalent projects in foreign-language WPs
  • More? Please add here ...
• Staying weekly or moving to fortnightly. I don't want to push this barrow if it's unpopular—I know there are voices on either side. The current edition is due to last only five days if the next one is on time. Twenty-six editions a year seems like a good service to the community. Do we need a formal gauging of supports, neutrals and opposes?
• Hard ongoing decision-making. If we are to encourage wider contributions to The Signpost, the flip-side of the coin is that we need some line of command and process to advise whether a one-off page might be too long or too short, and might be more appropriate for our readers if subsumed into, say, the "News and notes" section. There were mild question marks this time about the "Citations" article and the "T-shirts" article. I thought both could have been shorter and snappier, and possibly the T-shirts article transformed into a longish entry in News and notes. We need to grapple with the imperative to be interesting to our readers, all the time. It's a challenge.

Your responses would be appreciated. Tony (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I support an editorial board. mono 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I do too, for the sake of stability and reliability. I am willing to serve as a last-minute copy-editor; and if people think it's a good idea, I can ask around at FAC and the like for another few editors who might be willing to be on call. It's not a job I want to shoulder by myself week-in week-out. And I am willing to take tentative steps towards building up a team of foreign-language reps to increase our feed of news and our potential for collaboration with other WPs; but only if there's consensus here for this. Is everyone asleep? Tony (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a revolving editorial board would be beneficial. Every project should decide upon an editorial board (whether by election or otherwise) to represent itself throgh the Signpost. This way a board from a different project works towards the issue every fortnight (or week).--^Nilotpal42 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• No offense, Tony, but you've been commenting an awful lot the last few months about how the Signpost should be better run and generally improved. But I haven't seen you helping much with the weekly work [not that I have been either -- like a lot of long term Signpostians, I've been really busy lately]. Care to write a few articles? I know you left a post on my talk page about writing about some research articles, and that would be great if you would like to. I think Sage did the last ones. Anyway, there's a lot to be done for each and every issue, as you note. How about this: you write something and I'll let you know if I think it's too long or short. ;) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Offence is taken. Who spent hours copy-editing the last edition? One article needed particularly intensive work. Who wrote a substantial book review last month, the only one for about six months. Where have I criticised the running of The Signpost, as you claim? So this is the deal, I guess: you shut up unless you've given yourself a regular slot in that newsroom table. I don't walk in on other people's patches like that, just so that I might contribute ideas here. I'm out of here. Do it yourselves. Tony (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I definitely really appreciated your copy-editing lately, Tony, as well as the book review. When phoebe says ";)" and "no offense", she really means it; I think she's just trying to do whatever she can to first and foremost make sure the Signpost has a steady flow of content, which has always been a bigger source of complaint from readers than poor editing (which people will tend to fix themselves if it bothers them, but more often than not it just doesn't bother them).--ragesoss (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageross (talk • contribs)
  • I missed your book review, I'm sorry. Sage is right: I really didn't mean any offense; I also really appreciate your copyediting. What I *did* mean is that it's really hard to get people to contribute articles on a regular basis, which is what the Signpost now and has always really needed the most help with. I want you to *have* something to copyedit! And I *want* you to add yourself to the newsroom table! I think you've got my intention all wrong: I'd love to see you as a regular contributor. I'd love to see everyone focused on writing articles (that goes for everyone who has been talking about Signpost reform lately, btw, including me), and after we've managed to put out a few issues successfully sit down and talk about how best to do so in the future (rather than the other way around). This has seemed to be the most productive method of attacking the problem to date. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts, here and at my talk page. Yes, in addition to the book review, there was the article "Wikipedia remembers the Wall" to mark the 20th anniversary last November, and three reports on the ArbCom election in December, the last of which was substantial. And contributions to many of the "Dispatch" articles over the past few years, for which I mostly withdrew my name as a co-author. I am comfortable working behind the scenes: I don't go for personal exposure. But I do expect that people will be receptive to my critical calls for change. One should not have to be an Arbitrator to criticise ArbCom, should one?

Concerning your suggestion that I write something and you'll tell me whether it's too long or too short—intended rhetorically, I take it—I thrive on criticism, and am very happy to receive such feedback. In fact, I slashed the draft of my book review last month from 1900 to 1300 words after advice from a senior WPian who writes professionally. "You're not capturing your readers" was the comment, which was good advice (that is, it ended up being a hard read, even dull, and I still think it was too long after the slashing).

I have great admiration for those who come back week after week to write regular columns; my god, it's hard work. But there's a serious lack of internal feedback—that is, from fellow writers and others who might be brought in as "friends of The Signpost" to give their views. It's as though people rush in at the last minute on Monday/Tuesday and there's no time to reflect, and bang, it's published late and we need a rest from the rush. Then the cycle is repeated the following next week. Only a limited amount of criticism will come from the community (seresin asked last week, and received only a few remarks). We should be more open, have post-mortems, talk more about how to improve each page of the publication. Let me say, as painful as it might be, that no fewer than three WPians have told me over the past week that The Signpost can be a bit "dull"; all used that word. (One, a former contributor, said she doesn't bother reading it any more—I was disappointed.)

To me, the primary goal is to be interesting, and the cardinal sin is to lose a reader after the first paragraph. I am not criticising any particular writer: you are all talented; and there are many patches of really interesting stuff in The Signpost. But it's challenging to get the length, the tone, and the content right when we operate as little islands unto ourselves, hostage to the weekly grind. The German Signpost tries to escape its self-perceived stiffness, dullness, by being outrageous and out of line from time to time, as HaeB has pointed out; this is a very bad idea. Newsworthiness, engagement, colour and even drama are a world away from antics. We already have a decent publication, but I believe it has the potential to ride on the best traditions of anglophone journalism to provide the lead for all WPs. If it were me, I'd not rest until just about every active WPian looks forward to each publication.

You can throw cream buns at me for being narky, or you can pull together to foster a more interactive, dynamic culture of teamwork and change. Tony (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. To start our process of introspection, let's open discussion on this week's WikiProject Report. What do you all (the frequent writers, copyeditors, and publishers) like and dislike about this particular section? What do you think people want to see? How long is too long and how short is too short? How many voices are enough to represent the project without making the article crowded? Do people like my punny "teasers" at the end of each article? Do people read the items in our news sidebar? How many pictures/graphs/other stuff should we include in the right margin?

I'll admit that the interview process is a tad dry since we usually just list some questions on a sandbox page and invite the project's founder(s), coordinator(s), and the most active/interested members to come answer the questions. It is much easier to let them do it on their own time than to hunt people down for "live" interviews. You'd be surprised how many projects could really use the publicity but nobody from the project is willing to take the time to answer a few questions sitting on a sandbox. Occasionally, we'll add extra questions if some unique information crops up in an interview, as we did in this week's article when Jimbo showed interest. I know people are reading the section since we get a weekly spike of around 200 page views spread over the two days immediately following the Signpost's publication. I also know that people look through the archive with small spikes occurring with each Signpost issue's publication. (I'd still like to see more readers, though.)

To see how the section has evolved, compare this week's Report with our roots in 2007, an article from before the section died in November 2009, an unconventional report in January, a task force article with an early news sidebar in March, an interview with one interviewee, an interview with eight interviewees, and last week's report. And as always, feel free to pull other examples out of the archive. ;) -Mabeenot (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

#wikisignpost on IRC

As an experiment, I have just started the IRC channel #wikisignpost ^connect on Freenode. Everyone interested in Signpost matters is invited to join (see Wikipedia:IRC if you are unfamiliar with IRC and chatrooms). I will try to be available there as often as I can.

We will see how it goes, but considering the fact that several Signpost contributors are using IRC, and have used it to communicate about Signpost matters in the past, I expect that a separate channel can be useful at times for collaboration on upcoming issues: To see which Signpost regulars are online and might be available to answer a quick question or to provide a timely second opinion, to coordinate work on particular stories, to resolve issues during the publication process (especially when publication time is nearing), etc. There might also be some readers who feel more comfortable to provide feedback or tips in this way. Of course the channel can't and won't be a replacement for public discussions and forming consensus like on this page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! —mono 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it: I get The webpage cannot be displayed. Is anyone else getting this? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an IRC client? If not, go to this page. —mono 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You could try using an IRC client. Pidgin is free.--Forty two^{You talkin' to me?} 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mono. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've downloaded Pidgin, but still can't get onto it normally. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Press releases

I wonder if we might create a WP:Signpost/Press releases page, so that wiki-organizations, individuals, etc. can post info that they invite the Signpost to publish, or to follow up on. We could divide it up by month, e.g. WP:Signpost/Press releases/2010/July. Some press releases might not get published, but interested users can still read those that have been submitted if they wish to get an even broader perspective on what is going on at Wikipedia. E.g., users might post notices of barnstars they award to other users for exceptional contributions, or WikiProjects might announce major initiatives, or a developer may announce a new gadget he has created. The possibilities are endless. The idea is that users who have direct involvement in a newsmaking event can't really write the Signpost story, since they have a conflict of interest, but on the other hand, who is more familiar with the facts than the person who is involved? Press releases make the Signpost aware of the info, and perhaps reduce the amount of work to turn a tip into a properly formatted story. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty much what the suggestions page is for.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just not the same!! Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Section suggestions

How about a letters to the editor section or an editor's foreword, such as can be found in normal off-wiki newspapers? Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but there would need to be a team to look through the letters, and maybe write the foreword, along with the fact that usu. letters to the editor are not posted every day. Otherwise, good idea!  A p3rson ‽ 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

An editorial would be good, or an "opinion" section where two editors "face off" even... —mono^{how's my driving?} 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We do often feature an editor's foreword ("From the editor") when the occasion demands it, i.e. to provide important news about the Signpost itself.

As for "letters to the editor" in the sense of readers replying to articles, I think the talk page is best for that purpose, and we already have each story page transcluding the correspoinding talk page, i.e. featuring the "letters to the editor" prominently. (However,as discussed recently, we should link them in the single-page view, too - it's on my todo list.)

We already have an opinion section - follow the link in the sidebar above to the opinion desk which was introduced last year, but hasn't produced too many articles. (The "published" list there is incomplete, though - for example, the article Introducing the Public Policy Initiative in the last issue belongs into that genre too, as one can see from the extended byline. I am open to running more opinion pieces, but as discussed when that desk was introduced, they need to be selected really carefully. Each day Wikipedia's talk pages see thousands of thoughtful and interesting comments, but most of them are not interesting or relevant for Signpost readers.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Consequently, (or not) all of the opinion pieces I've seen take a position on the "issue" which is why having opposing viewpoints from different editors would be better. Speaking of stuff, has anyone tried to work on the front page? We've changed our logo, btw... —mono^{how's my driving?} 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. My only gripe is now that there are less words in the header it feels very...empty. Perhaps the image could be made bigger or more words could be added below. Your suggestions are welcome. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts, too; could it be just a teensy-weensy larger? Like 5–10%? Unsure till we see it. That might solve my other niggle—the slightly too large space above the lettering (between it and the boundary). I suggest no more words below if possible; the cleaner and simpler the header is, the more effective, I think. Tony (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

How about a coat of arms? It could go between the 'the' and 'signpost'. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 16:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the mastheads for The Times and The Daily Mail (on Sunday)? -Mabeenot (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How's this? Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC) File:Sign post coat of arms.png

New front page

I made a potential mockup of a new front page here. What do you think? —mono(how's my driving?) 19:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That might work best as a replacement for the "single page" version of the Signpost. Could the links on the right sidebar just open the corresponding article in the left window? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on it. I doesn't look...right. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's really bad, to be honest. As above, it's not a front page, it's a single-page view, which means we can't transclude comments properly, and it's harder for people to link to certain articles. It's also criminal to use an iframe/overflow div in this context. — Pretzels ^Hii! 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The iframe is really just a technical limitation. My goal was to have a rotating article where the iframe is, but I couldn't do that without a lot of specific template changes. —mono(how's my driving?) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To what end? It could be a good idea to use a sidebar for the contents on our single-page view, but it would likely interfere with the sidebars at the start of each article - or at least knock them out of place. I don't think we need to innovate here. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

←I can't say it grabs me: kind of complicated. Tony (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania coffee mini-meetup

Anyone who's interested in The Signpost and attending Wikimania, please come to hang out with me and HaeB and Phoebe and others during the second coffee break. We'll meet near the Open Space board.--ragesoss (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Signpost" is way too generic a rename

"The Signpost" could be the name of any sort of publication from Palookaville to Podunk. Please go with something more descriptive and useful, like "The Wikimedia Signpost" or just "The Wiki Signpost".--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, someone's gotta agree with me on this...--Pharos (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion a few weeks ago. Check it out here. It may become the "Wikimedia Signpost" someday down the road, but right now there isn't enough coverage of other projects to warrant that broader moniker. Our coverage is still primarily Wikipedia with only a few bits from other projects. The "Wikipedia" was eliminated because it resulted in redundant page names and readers of the Signpost don't need to be reminded that they're reading this newsletter on Wikipedia. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to clarify: We do have a lot of coverage about topics beyond the English Wikipedia, especially in the "News and notes", "In the news" and "Technology Report" sections. This interwiki angle was also discussed at length back in June, and it was a major reason for the rename - in fact, the very first reason given in the renaming proposal linked above: "It makes a very visible signal that we report from other Wikimedia family projects too".

It is true, however, that our Interwiki coverage is mostly about other Wikipedias and not often about non-Wikipedia projects. While we should try to cover them too (and we do have an upcoming report about Wikinews, for example), I think this is also due to the fact that Wikipedias attract the very vast majority of pageviews and editors for the Foundation's projects (see the slides for Erik Möller Wikimania talk, p.4.)

Pharos is right that "The Signpost" could be the name of a wholly different publication - in fact, it is. In any case, outside of Wikipedia it is still useful to put "Wikipedia" or "Wiki" in front of the name, such as on Twitter and identi.ca or for the RSS feed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost "Best current event award" of the year?

Wikipedia's coverage of unfolding events seems to be on the increase. Some people see this as a highly significant extension of the project's endeavour to provide the world with neutral information. It's just an idea for consideration: that The Signpost create an award for the best example each year (based on the use of an appropriate template in article namespace), and choose an uninvolved panel to select the winner. The objectives would be:

• to foster excellence in neutral, up-to-date, topical reportage on the English Wikipedia; and
• to provide subject matter for a Signpost article on the winner, the runners-up, and the phenomenon itself, probably in late January.

If SIgnpost editors think this is a good idea, draft criteria would need to be drawn up and agreed on, and an announcement made. Feedback appreciated. Tony (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Post publishing corrections ?

Hello to the Signpost team! Love what you do!

(The following situation has probably already occurred in the past, so please excuse me for my lack of knowledge on this.)

I am largely unfamiliar with the Signpost redaction process, but it is my understanding that the articles published do not fall in the realm of "edit at will" (since they are signed by the reporters and all).

Though, the Technology report of the current edition, about the cooperation project between Wikimédia France and the French National Library, is largely inaccurate (I am not blaming anyone here ; in fact, we're the ones to blame for our obvious lack of communication). I have published a comment to explain what happened in this project.

My question would be: is this it? Should one correct the original text ? Should it be written over for the next edition (in which case we could help with that) ? I am just asking here, in case we could be of any help ; if your answer is something along the lines of "Sorry but it's not how we do things here", that's perfectly fine for me :-)

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Fred, this is a bit of a grey area, since - contrary to usual wiki pages - each Signpost issue has a certain "publication time", after which no significant changes should be made. Of course, getting things right is the most important concern and in practice, smaller fixes (like typos) and corrections are accepted in the days following publication, but since in this case almost a week has passed already, and - judging from your remarks on the talk page - the story would need to be changed significantly, I just put a notice into the story instead, pointing to these corrections.

Thanks for the note, and (like I said in Poland to several of your colleagues), stories about other interesting news from WM France are very welcome in the Signpost!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HaeB for the reply and the notice you put. I was in Poland too, but I don't think I had the pleasure to talk to you... :-( Though, I heard about this from my colleagues. From now on, we definitely will be more active in communicating news we may have to relevant places such as the Signpost!

Jean-Fred (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Sorry. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity Signpost

I'm thinking about starting a wikiversity equivalent of the Signpost. Would anyone be willing to help me? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For this, I'm planning to copy the templates from here. Is that a problem with anybody? Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Image placement within lists

User:Graham87 has provided helpful advice on image placement within lists, in relation to his edit here, in the F and A page of the current SP:

this should always be done when imbedding pictures in lists, like you did at the Signpost article. The reason is that, when parsing HTML lists, MediaWiki interprets any line that doesn't contain a "*" for unordered lists as the end of a list. Screen readers, which try to determine the number of items in each list, read out the information incorrectly. This is best illustrated by the example from my edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19/Features and admins: before my edit, a screen reader would say: "Wikipedia has 15 new featured articles: list of 11 items ... list end, image, list of 4 items ... list end". As you can probably gather, this sounds rather strange. After my edit, it now says "Wikipedia has 15 new featured articles: list of 15 items ... list end", which makes far more sense.

Tony (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Idea for article

I've got an idea for an article. It's on how corrupt the Sysops at Wikiversity are, how unfairly they run it. Should I go ahead and start it? Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 16:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. monosock 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another idea I've got is to do something about this. Would that be any better? Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration report July 19 2010 concern

Note: Subsequent to the thread below, the author and I have talked quite amicably and in a relaxed manner on this. It's a matter of seeking editorial eyeballs rather than needing formal correction.

Background

I was moved to copyedit the arbcom report for 19 July. Whatever the rights and wrongs of doing so, the problem is that Signpost is looked on as a journalistic publication and the Arbitration section had failings in that job and in that issue. This post is to seek wider eyeballs due to concerns not being resolved by talk page dialog.

The July 19 report stated of a matter that

1. Arbcom "tried to justify". There is no evidence whatsoever to support this tone or its negative implications.
2. It also presented a decision as something unilaterally innovated and new rather than explaining it was merely a return to the previous pre-election system (which is highly salient),
3. Presented (implied) a decision about "administrators only" as if something new, unilateral or unusually restrictive rather than identical to every Arbcom CU appointment there has ever been,
4. Presented the idea that election candidates could reapply as if somehow unusual ("Additionally..."), rather than the routine norm on every election process from rollback to stewardship,
5. Stated in the headline that Arbcom had "dumped" the results suggesting the results were ignored (or reinterpreted); in fact they followed the results and election rules precisely despite the problems,
6. It was also poorly constructed - it starts by presuming knowledge of the CU/OS elections and the first statement is that Arbcom will "continue" to do something that in fact wasn't the norm so far this year and which is completely omitted. Part is in the middle of the 2nd paragraph but most is omitted.

Side by side of announcements, Signpost writeup, and copyedit version

Announcements Original as written As copyedited As was previously announced, while the Arbitration Committee appreciates the participation and good faith of everyone involved in the May 2010 elections for CheckUser and Oversight permissions, the overall result was not satisfactory in that important positions necessary to the project could not be filled. There was at the time of the election, and there remains today, a need for multiple additional CU and OS operators to address significant backlogs in these critical areas. The arbitrators have carefully reviewed the recent request for comments regarding the results of the election. Our evaluation of the community's comments is that they did not indicate a strong consensus for any particular solution to this problem. The Committee has determined that, until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system, selection of CheckUser and Oversight operators will once again be made directly by the Committee. There will be a period for community comments to be submitted concerning all proposed candidates, but a formal election will not be held. No additional appointments will be made based on the results of the May 2010 elections. We again thank everyone who participated in the recent election and in the subsequent request for comments. The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010. Early today, the Committee announced that it will continue to appoint CheckUser and Oversight candidates until the community comes to a strong consensus for a workable alternative election method. The Committee tried to justify this decision on the basis of its evaluation – that no strong consensus existed for any particular solution in the review into CheckUser and Oversight selection The Committee also announced that no further appointments will be made on the basis of the results of the May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight election; those results were deemed as unsatisfactory (see Signpost coverage) and appear to have been dumped. Instead, the Committee has made a call for CheckUser and Oversight applications from administrators only. Additionally, the Committee encouraged unsuccessful candidates from the election to reapply. The closing date for applications is August 1, and between August 13 and August 22, the community will be permitted to comment on users who are actively being considered for the role(s). Early today, the Committee announced its decision on the May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight elections, which were previously deemed "unsatisfactory" (see Signpost coverage). The Committee stated that no further appointments would be made as a result of the failed election, however the positions needed to be filled, and "until a strong community consensus exists for a workable alternative election system, selection of CheckUser and Oversight operators will once again be made directly by the Committee", the method used previously in 2008. The Committee explained this decision on the basis that following considerable community consultation, no strong consensus existed for any particular solution in the review into CheckUser and Oversight selection. Simultaneously, the Committee made a call for CheckUser and Oversight applications from administrators. Candidates from the May 2010 elections were encouraged to reapply. The closing date for applications is August 1, and between August 13 and August 22, the community is invited to submit comments on those users whom the Committee states to be candidates for the role(s).

The author was informed of the concerns. Ncm said he will "certainly take your feedback", but the rest of the response stated "I don't agree that there is an issue here" and also stated "Signpost is not another vehicle for merely singing the exact tunes that are sung at the Committee noticeboard because that's what the Committee, or users who support the Committee's position (on a particular issue), want others to hear". This was pretty awful bad faith; a quick review of the above edit shows that the copyedit was remedying defects, not pushing a stance. Ditto "it will not hold some unreal and stringent alliance to statements that were in themselves flawed" - the same quick check will show that the "flaw" was in the writeup not the original statement and the copyedit was for fidelity and usefulness not slanting of a view.

A follow-up explanation seemed to be trying to explain but implied that because some responses are trying to slant the publication, genuine concerns are likely to be marginalized. It also seemed to show a complete missing or dismissal of the point ("And no, Signpost will not turn into a report that covers excruciatingly boring material in an excruciatingly boring way... I nevertheless thank you for providing your feedback").

Without any effect on my trust in Ncmvocalist, whose collaborative skills and quality of insight I have full respect for and confidence in (I am sure he is aiming to protect Signpost's independence which is quite right too), my concern is that any writing issue, concern or misconception that took place could recur on other occasions.

My concern is that Signpost should report faithfully as well as impartially, and not tabloid-style.

My feelings of what went wrong here are:

1. reports (as opposed to opinion pieces) should not be written in a tone that suggests taking sides, or using wording that implies states of mind or motives that don't seem to actually exist ("tried to justify" being a prime example),
2. reports should fairly report on events and not inadvertently dramatize or sensationalize them, and
3. reports should be sufficient to give a clear and balanced (albeit brief) background for a reader unfamiliar with the situation,
4. users who express a concern that Signpost may have implied or presented an inaccurate impression should feel their concerns have a fair review.

I am bringing the matter here for extra eyeballs so that both of us may be sure it's had good quality consideration and anything either of us needs to take away from it is fair and thought out, and so that Signpost remains the best it can be in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Response by journalist

A few issues are missed in FT2's "background":

1. FT2 incidentally is an ex-arbitrator who previously held a role in appointing Checkusers/Oversighters, and supported that system of filling CU/OS positions. Even following the announcement, FT2 expressed a strong position on the substantive issues in question and responded several times to assert his position at the discussion, especially that he felt ArbCom were fully justified in doing what they did.
2. FT2's move to copyedit came half a week after the publication was read by hundreds of users, and with the exception of xeno, other readers appeared to have understood the meaning of what was conveyed without assigning false accusations to the journalist (me).
3. Some of the initial responses at the noticeboard suggested that there were concerns with what ArbCom was doing and the reasons for them doing so [1] - notably, as with the first concern expressed in that diff, the announcement was made on the date of Signpost publication. While I appreciate FT2 holds a position that ArbCom was justified, others think it wasn't justified and that ArbCom's justification wasn't anything of the sort. The middle was "tried to justify" so that users think twice about what is being said and come to their own opinions; I think there were better ways of making readers think about it, but it's really unfair + unwarranted to suggest that this was an attempt to editorialise - I think each reader is critical enouh to come to their own conclusions as to whether they believe something is justified or not justified or somewhere in the middle.
4. The original announcement, which is juxtaposed in the collapse box, made no specific reference about returning to any system. It simply said that it will "once again" (or "continue to") appoint candidates. This recent source was faithfully adhered to, and any omissions by ArbCom are their own responsibility - the expectation that I synthesise content from years ago appears to be conflicting with that I should be faithfully adhering to the original recent source. There was no comment in the source about whether this method was fully compliant with or indifferent to that used in 2008.
5. The election and results came about for the purpose of filling 6 OS and 4 CU positions; this was stated on more than one occasion, and was reported in Signpost as such in the past few months. The reality was that the results were only used to fill 1 position; also reported. Within 2 months of these elections, ArbCom were calling for candidates to appoint themselves because the results were "unsatisfactory" - the results were disposed of in favour of such appointments because the election/results did not serve the purpose that they were meant to any longer. This is consistent with the meaning of "ArbCom to appoint candidates after dumping election results"; a headline which some users appreciated and was within journalist discretion (in so far as not pushing any particular position except one that could be reasonably understood from the situation). There is nothing routine about what happened here, and I still think the manner in which the concern was expressed by xeno and FT2 was exaggerated.
6. I'm not saying this is a yellow press; but I am saying that this is a news publication. I agree that reports (as opposed to opinion pieces) should not be written in a tone that suggests taking sides, or using wording that implies states of mind or motives that don't seem to actually exist and I agree that reports should be reported on fairly (and be clear and balanced). However, I don't think that readers are merely wanting Signpost to become a duplicate of the Committee noticeboard either; Signpost is independent and to suggest every single word will match what bureaucracy wants is really not reasonable at all; it will make Signpost excruciatingly boring, and we would need to consider whether this report is worthy of inclusion on Signpost if it's purely for voicing + representing Committee noticeboard postings (and in the same regard, the position of users who support these postings).
7. The construction was really not that far off from what came in the original announcement and aftermath. I am not purporting to be perfect; there will always be room for improvement, but it's a matter of what the concern is, how serious it is, and what can be done about it when the effect of the publication has pretty much ended. If it was a serious inaccuracy, I would have left a note for readers to check it out for themselves. Nevertheless, I wasn't dismissing FT2's concerns, contrary to what he might have inadvertantly alleged above, and it was after a lot of discussion behind the scenes, a note has been left in this week's Signpost (under my endorsement) to give FT2's concerns sufficient eyes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated greatly, that is honorable. As I said, this is mainly to see if there are any lessons from it. A formal note in the 26 July report wouldn't be needed to achieve that. If you feel it would help that's fine though, just affirming a public note isn't something I was specifically after, and removing that footnote is fine as is keeping it, if it was added mostly to try and "do the right thing". I wasn't looking for a correction or statement. Just looking for any concerns to be reviewed by uninvolved signpost staff (or passers by) on Signposts editorial feedback pages, as it didn't feel resolved when we spoke, to see if they might have helpful input.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, if it's felt the 26 July footer is best removed, do so - I'm comfortable with the thread here for editorial discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Just passing by - I don't know the ins and outs of the situation, but my feelings are: (a) yes, the copyedited version is an improvement, for the reasons stated, but (b) the Signpost should ideally also be reporting on criticisms (and praise) made of the actions of ArbCom, not just the actions themselves (I don't know if there was any such reaction in this case).--Kotniski (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and I personally would prefer some digest or sounding of the wider discussions that take place related to these as well. Would need to be a balanced and informative characterization of these debates and sentiments (for me), but that doesn't mean a "boring" read either. I like Signpost as much as the next reader too :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Similar concerns were raised at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Next issue; I also think the report in question strayed too far into editorializing rather than dispassionately reporting. –xeno^talk 15:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hasn't the "Lengthy Litigation" report traditionally been a neutral digest of current arbitration matters, to provide an overview for readers who aren't watching all the many sub-pages? It has always been broader in scope than just the ArbCom noticeboard by providing updates on the progress of individual proceedings. Is there any reason to dispense with this model?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It always seems very sanitized, projecting the myth that ArbCom conducts dignified and well-run proceedings. Of course, the Signpost is written by volunteers, to whom we are grateful for all they do, but it would be nice to hear more of the actual "evidence" and other discussions going on in these cases, as you would in real-life court reporting.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Real-life court reporting tends to divide into three different types of article: (i) summary digests of proceedings opened and closed, appointments and so forth; (ii) recordings/analysis of notable decisions (normally by experienced lawyers); and (iii) current affairs reporting of evidence as it unfolds, often in sensational or celebrity cases (the OJ Simpson Trial, for instance, or more recently, Conrad Black's appeal). It seems to me that type (i) is covered by "Lengthy Litigation" and types (ii) and (iii) could be (and have been) adequately covered in other sections of SP, in an appropriate length to their merits. I'm not sure how a concise neutral digest amounts to promoting a myth, any more than the publication of, say, raw football league results would. Roger Davies ^talk 09:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem arises if there are pure expectations for ArbCom to be treated like a court; they are not synonymous - it all comes back to separation of powers, complying with obligations, knowing what to expect, rah rah rah. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't want to go too far off-topic, but if the football matches consisted of the players running around kicking and punching each other while the ref and linesmen stood around on the touchline doing nothing, then after a few hours the officials suddenly announced that the match was over and the score was 3-2, then publication of a list of such "results" would indeed be promoting a myth of sorts. (I'm not saying that ArbCom proceedings are quite that bad, although the one I was once involved in was actually worse - and I don't remember reading any of the criticism made of ArbCom's handling of such matters ever being reported in Signpost, though I may be wrong.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think several users who have been involved in arbitration share your opinion (though I also think there are few flip side opinions too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're disagreeing on the essentials. To take your football match analogy a bit further, real-life reporting would probably have the 3-2 score in a digest; with a news story (and possibly an editorial as well) elsewhere in the journal covering the brawls on the pitch.

And, yes, arbitration is sometimes a messy business, reflecting (if I may dare say so) the sometimes imperfect way in which Wikipedia itself operates. And, of course, while you may not remember seeing criticism of ArbCom in Signpost, I cannot recall seeing (though I might be wrong too) ArbCom's praises sung.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) "Tell me about X" can lead to write-ups that are dull or engaging, contain anecdotes, observations, a blow by blow recount conveying the emotions shown by participants, analysis of wider issues and views, soundbites, journalistic quips and "humanizing" of the matter - the whole works. But at heart it should still have a recognizable stance, either that it presents the information fairly, balanced, and without unsupported implications/claims, or that it does take one side to a greater or lesser degree but everyone knows it, etc. My feeling is that Signpost should, whatever its written style, leave the user with an even, informed, accurate, and balanced impression. That would (in my view) apply to all areas - Arbcom, RFAs, media dramas, etc.

I think the specifics related to last week's report are probably taken on board or at least understood, the principle and any confirmation of balance and of "fair tone" expectations going forward (and maybe a little increased awareness/vigilance) is what's important. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read both versions, and also followed ArbCom on and off for quite a while. I think Ncmvocalist's version was not neutral and did clearly convey some flavour of the doubt around the ArbCom pronouncements on the elections. I think FT2's version, by contrast, was slanted towards the view that anything ArbCom declares as indisputable truth and should be accepted as gospel. To be honest, it reminded me of the old Signpost reports on ArbCom that were so sterilised and sanitised as to convey a distorted view of ArbCom proceedings and and an unquestioning acceptance of official statements. Perhaps there was too much comment in Ncmocalist's piece, but it was worth reading - and I would take the time to consider the perspectives in future reports, even if I disagreed with them.

I know that ArbCom is a quasi-judicial body and certainly its members occupy positions of trust. In situations where confidential evidence is involved, it follows that Committee statements are generally accepted. In cases not involving confidential materials, everything is available for anyone to inspect. However, ArbCom undertakes activities that are not strictly judicial, and particularly in those circumstances it is appropriate that more scrutiny occurs. In the present discussion we are talking of an election where ArbCom has taken some highly unusual steps. These include:

• Declaring that the elections results were unsatisfactory and dictating that an unscheduled additional set of appointments would be made
• Declaring that not only will those appointments, but also all future appointments will be made without elections until an unrealistic standard is met. Declaring that an irregular appointment would be made as a one-off, but that a return to elections would happen for the next round would have been much more respecting of empowering the community in making appointments
• Encouraging that candidates rejected by this election re-apply for immediate appointment - this is incredibly disrepectful of the community views as expressed in the elections. Now, to forestall the inevitable objection here, there is nothing wrong with those candidates standing in the next regular appointment round, but standing in the irregular round designed to appoint candidates because they failed to receieve sufficient community support is outrageous. That ArbCom would consider saying "sorry you didn't get elected, but we'll appoint you anyway" shows an astounding lack of respect for the community and for electoral processes, in my opinion

Short version... I hope Ncmvocalist continues to make ArbCom reports / discussions something worth reading, and whilst there may be issues with individual reports on occasions, I think this part of Signpost is definitely moving in a positive direction. EdChem (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But notice:

• The actual comment on the election results was "The election process has yielded only one successful CheckUser candidate, and no successful Oversight candidates. This outcome is not satisfactory in that crucial roles within the project cannot be filled". Not that the results were disagreed with, "dumped", overridden, or thrown out. The committee didn't do as you're implying and go "oh well, let's just do it our own way". The results showed one person met the 70% hurdle, and that is exactly what was appointed, no more and no less.

• The election process states "In the event appointments are very urgently needed and there are insufficient immediately available candidates, the community will be consulted as to its wishes". That is exactly what happened.

• The community consultation showed considerable support for several options but no consensus. A considerable number of people did seemed to prefer one of the two options of "appoint people under 70%" or "Arbcom choose who they trust", and in every election candidates can re-stand. Allowing candidates or appointments from one election as well as others (whether succeeded or failed) to stand in the next one is normal. For one thing, the positions need to be filled and the committee's job is to fill them with candidates it trusts somehow. The community did not agree with you (or me, or anyone there) on any clear "one best way" to do it. Everyone differed on what should happen (and I abstained). In that circumstance the committee reverted back precisely to its previous system, which also had significant support in the RFC too.

So I disagree with your characterization of the matter. If Arbcom messes up or there is a backlash on a matter, Signpost should report it accurately and independently. But in this case to report (or strongly imply) they effectively disregarded the election results when it's clear from both the on-wiki posts and actions that they followed it as far as the process had rules set out and with consultation, is misleading.

It's a valid view (although not the only valid view) that it was "disrespectful", or the proposed standard "unrealistic" or that allowing candidates to re-stand so soon was wrong, or any other opinion. That's one of many subjective views some users may hold. (I haven't disclosed or suggested my view on it, for example; assuming it's known would be pure guesswork.) What I'm concerned about is the representing of the events that are documented on-wiki. I'd like to be more sure that Signpost reports will accurately and fairly represent what took place on the wiki when they say they are, so that I know what I'm reading is a fair balanced characterization of the week's happenings, however much personal style, extra information and (identifiable) personal opinion and views of the journalist might also be included. That's all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• With respect FT2, I think this is coming back to my concern that you're position on this does not necessarily reflect how this appears to some outsiders in the true sense of the word - there's always going to be a mixture of agreement and disagreement, but at the end of the day, not everyone is going to merely nod their heads because that's what the words of the announcement say or what anyone or anything says for that matter.
• If the election+results served their original purpose (to fill those critical roles), would ArbCom have: declared that it was unsatisfactory, called for applicants, and encouraged unsuccessful candidates to apply, all within the period of two months? No. "ArbCom called for applicants after dumping election results" (or after disposing of the results) because they no longer served the purpose that they were designed for, and ArbCom adopted a different system. It was quite reasonable to come to this conclusion as an outsider. Unless it has expired, or there is a need for space, or it was an accident, people don't "dump" or "dispose" of something as waste after not using it at all; they use it and only dump it when they think it should be dumped. It's really quite a novel concept.
• Especially at the time of publication, nothing in the statement explicitly confirmed or denied whether this system was going to be completely 100% consistent with the 2008 practice, back when you were an arbitrator; this lack of clarity ultimately remains ArbCom's responsibility.
• Especially at the time of publication, nothing in the statement explicitly considered or recapped which options the community had considerable support for (let alone why); this gap in content ultimately remains ArbCom's responsibility also.
• No attempt was made by the Committee to take those proposals and re-ask the community to choose between them (like 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, in the interests of moving forward). Instead, it, according to your conclusions, can be seen to have chosen one of the options because it happens to have used this approach in the past - is that the best way forward? This is what readers should have thought about, whether ArbCom like this or doesn't, and whether or not this is the best basis upon which a decision should be made. In less visible venues, some people have also raised a lot of questions that can be asked over the manner in which this decision was conveyed - was there enough reasoning? What was said that we didn't see in the announcement? Etc. etc.
• I certainly made no attempt to say or imply that the results were completely disregarded as it would be inconsistent with the previous reports I've written, and I clarified the doubt that was raised by xeno on this point in the discussion section of the same report where you first discussed the copyedit. Again, just above, I explained what people think of by the meaning of "dumped" or "disposed". Contrary to the suggestion, and as I reiterated in my earlier response, I didn't unfairly represent (let alone outright misrepresent) what took place on-wiki; all the material was reviewable by the reader (none of it involved offwiki comments or evidence). Signpost has never purported to be a replacement. However, Signpost's coverage is pretty fair and balanced, its accuracy is quite good, it informs users, it raises awareness of issues, it lets readers look at the original sources and it makes readers think about those issues (so whether they agree or disagree, they've come to their own conclusions/views).
• Whether I wrote in the "sanitised" method preferred by some (which can also seem quite on the boring side), or whether I wrote in the "raw/blunt" method preferred by others (which would in all likelihood be the other extreme), or whether I kept writing for the purpose for fulfilling some of those basic principles relating to Signpost as a publication, there is always going to be someone who has an issue. But at the end of the day, my writing has served the purpose of making people aware of the issue and think about the issue, all within the realms of what is acceptable, and given that I've justified my position (and where I cannot, I'd either retract in extreme cases or where it's inaccuracy, would make readers aware of it), I've done the right thing and have fulfilled my responsibilities - in saying this, I'm not talking about being perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments,

1. An election has a success mark of 70%. It returns just one person of many above 70% and just that one person is appointed. The election holders state the election result isn't satisfactory because several more positions needed filling that it didn't fill. They have an obligation to ensure services from those positions and they consult what to do to fill the others. That's just not best summed up as "dumping the results". The election process was eventually dumped (but even that wasn't until the community was asked and a month later hadn't come up with any agreed answer), but not the election results.
2. A careful read of their post made clear it's the same as 2008 and if in any lingering doubt an email (I'm writing this up for Signpost, is this the same as in 2008?) would have clarified it: - anyone may submit a candidacy, shortlist formed internal to AC, communal publication of shortlist, input requested, Arbcom decision after considering any input. Identical to the previous process, or close enough to say "sounds almost identical to the previous version" if it was necessary to hedge a bit.
3. Contrary, the RFC did in fact ask the community "how should we move forward". It asked both short term (should any failed or 50%+ candidates be appointed or the election rerun or some other suggestion) and longer term (what about the appointment process).
4. Anyone can view the RFC and confirm the RFC close did not show a clear answer and there was no clear "options the community had considerable support for". If the RFC results needed summing up in detail, or there was a "gap" in not doing so, anyone (you, me, or any user) could have filled that gap by reviewing the RFC themselves.
5. Again, adding assertions without any evidence something like "tried to justify" did add to the impression of a poor summary.

Like we have discussed, it's not the end of the world (and probably getting close to "dead horse" territory) but it's enough to say "could have been written better and more faithfully to the sources" and for future. That's all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: 2, you are missing the point...the obligations of Signpost does not extend to such an unrealistic level. ArbCom are responsible for their omissions - if they omit a key term from an announcement about the fact this was the exact same method used in 2008, and we carry that omission inadvertantly or otherwise, that is ArbCom's problem. If ArbCom didn't omit it but Signpost inadvertantly or otherwise omitted it, that would be our problem. I always make an effort to avoid problems on any front within the realms of what is acceptable, and what is practicible (eg; you will note that I asked SirFozzie about what was the intent between changing the block of OR earlier this week; you should also note the timing of that announcement and that we weren't getting ready to publish close to that point). However, I plainly refuse to be blamed for something I'm not responsible for when this complaint should have been directed to those responsible in the first instance (ArbCom). I was reporting on what can reasonably be understood on the basis of the announcement without being inconsistent with recent reports. I satisfied both of these requirements within the realms of what is acceptable, whether or not ArbCom, yourself, or members of bureaucracy prefer a more sanitised version. Had the announcement been made sometime earlier than on the day of (or day before) publication (as this sort of thing would have come to my attention by then), I would have definitely exercised my discretion as a journalist (like with the rest of the report) and write something to this sort of effect: "This method appears similar to the method that Signpost reported in 2008 [link]."

Re: 1, whether or not the positions are filled, the community has spoken - at the time of the election, for whatever reason, the community stated in no uncertain terms with regards to which and how many candidates achieved sufficient support (trust + confidence) for the positions. To invite the same unsuccessful candidates within 2 months may be understandable to some, but may also be of concern some, and I conveyed that much in the report for users to come to their own conclusions (EdChem seems to have effectively outlined the concern side while you seem to have for the understandable side - note how the concerns, even after your input at WT:AC/N, were not offset in the way that you might have thought they were). If the threshold was too high to judge what the community was telling ArbCom, then this issue goes back to the people who set the election as it was, and who changed the method of the election as it was (and whatever other concerns have been raised either during or before the community review about what ArbCom did). See also the next point.

Re: 3 + 4, er no, ArbCom did not explicitly re-ask. Note again, I said re-ask, not just ask. By this I mean you don't limit input to the one RfC where there's an overwhelming amount of content; you take the points that have sufficient support and put that in a separate "fresh" discussion so as to re-ask the question in a particular effective way without the many distractions. This isn't totally foreign to wiki; in fact, many sanction discussions sometimes have to work in that fashion in order to move forwards in the true sense rather than leaving the closing admin in an awkward sort of position, though even some closing admins have had enough clue to re-ask the question. Even arbitrator proposals have to work in this fashion of "first choice" "second choice" sometimes, be it in a decision or in motions - the difference is the smaller amount of input (only what...15ish arbs?) means there are a smaller amount of distractions. The extent of a deadlock, if any, could have been tested - I'm not saying it will always produce results that are desired but it certainly was an option that was not exercised by ArbCom who asked for the first review. As someone already suggested, it was totally unrealistic to expect something concrete to emerge from the first review (which was in some respects, flawed anyway), and the vague and unhelpful "until community consensus emerges" only served to confirm the people's suspicions; ArbCom could have pushed for the second more restricted review ('these are the options...community can discuss and vote on these ones') to increase the real chances of that happening sooner and with more clarity. Instead, it took another way out - see EdChem's concerns, which would not have been resolved even if there was no omission mentioned in the point Re: 2.

Re: 5, I've already responded to this in the previous subsection.

I know it's not the end of the world either way, but it's important that my position in relation to the complaints are clearly marked for the future. Your position is that what I wrote was poor (which is close to, if not exactly the equivalent of unacceptable); my position was that what I wrote was reasonably and otherwise acceptable, but not perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just a quick note to add here. If there is concern in future over something like this, I would suggest trying to contact the committee or individual arbitrators to ask for comments before publication (something I believe is standard journalism practice when doing anything other than reporting on the bare facts). I can't promise that anyone will be around to answer any questions, and some questions may be something that individual arbitrators can't really answer, but if I am around I will do my best to help as far as I can in answering any queries. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FT2, the basic problem with your argument is that some of your "facts" aren't facts, they are interpretations, assertions, inferences, etc. EdChem (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just writing in general praise of the July 19th edition which I've just caught up with belatedly. I especially like the recent expansion of the "Best of..." page which showcases our featured content. It's great to have the brief explanations of what the featured articles are about. I'm sure that will lead to more readers clicking to view those articles - it's certainly the case with me.

I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall Signpost used to get delivered on Wednesdays and now it's Mondays. I like that; I contribute to Wikipedia on weekdays and catching up with all the news as I begin my week I find very inspiring. So, thanks to everyone involved on Signpost. And I'm very pleased that, having arrived at the July 19th issue so late, I should be seeing another edition in a couple of hours :O) --bodnotbod (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) You're not wrong at all; we've been dealing with a few matters for some time, but after a lot of pushing, the team has worked together to bring Signpost back to deliveries on Monday. Thank you for providing your feedback! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussions, Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Can we go back to having that as the subtitle for Discussion Report? I always found the three clever titles (Discussions, Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations, The Report on Lengthy Litigation, and Bugs, Reports, and Internal Operations) very amusing. NW (Talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I also support this. — Pretzels ^Hii! 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, hilarious, particularly when you've seen them for the two hundredth time. Meanwhile the readers who don't notice the oh-so-clever wordplay are left wondering what on earth the section in question is actually about. (And presumably those who do notice conclude that the Signpost's position is that all Wikipedia discussions are drama and all ArbCom proceedings are trolling.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kotniski: the number of readers who actually get the acronym jokes must be tiny, and they come at the cost of very unsnappy headlines. I only got the BRION thing last week, when it came up, and I only got the DRAMA thing just now. Maybe I'm thick. I would drop them and use snappier subtitles, without the alphabet soup upper case. Tony (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence and I think there's +/- in both views. I'm testing which is more suitable for the title of the arb report in particular. Will be interested to hear more feedback on the issue in the meantime. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that ArbCom proceedings have virtually nothing in common with "litigation" (more like "prosecution" if anything, though even that's a poor analogy), so that really is a misleading title (and even if a reader happens to notice that the initial letters of the title spell "troll" - so what? Why that word? Are we really accusing everyone who brings an ArbCom case of being a troll?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that initialism. I don't think much of it at all. Let's make The Signpost reader-oriented, interesting. These coded wink-winks are all too in-house. Tony (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind cryptic insider jokes as long they do not get in the way of the reporting. And, yes I too have reservations against ArbCom proceedings being referred to as 'litigation'. I can think of nothing more apt than 'dispute resolution' which is what it really is.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another aspect which hasn't been mentioned yet: On the issue content page (example), both the section title (e.g. "Arbitration Report") and the subtitle (e.g. "The Report on Lengthy Litigation") are displayed next to each other. If someone decides to use "Arbitration Report" as the subtitle, too, as it has happened recently, that would lead to an undesirable doubling on the content page ("Arbitration Report: Arbitration Report").

I have the impression that many readers like the puns and that they don't do too much harm among the rest. But I also agree that a good, descriptive headline is preferable to a generic one: It is crucial for readership numbers as many readers arrive at the contents page first and use the headlines there to decide which stories may interest them.

I would therefore propose the following compromise: We keep "Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations", "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" and "Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News" as fallbacks which are overridden as soon as a Signpost writer comes up with a decriptive headline that does a good job of summarizing the content of that section in that issue. At publication time, I will check for each of the three sections if we have arrived at such a title, if not, I will use the fallback.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW and FWIW, "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" had been used (apparently) continually since the very first Signpost issue in 2005, see Michael Snow's remark about the name there. There is a discussion about a new generic name for that section (invented by Ncmvocalist) here and currently in the Newsroom. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued from newsroom:

A common cause of concern regarding the new name "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution" is that it is POINTy, disruptive, and non-neutral and that "'tricky' has an inescapable ring of 'Tricky Dicky Nixon'". It has also been suggested that it be renamed to 'Arbitration Report'.

Personally, I find 'Arbitration Report' to be too bland. I also very strongly disagree to the suggestion that the new name is POVish. Only the trickiest and the lengthiest disputes make it to ArbCom and hence the name is very apt.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. To add to this, since 2005, there has been no concern about the title containing the word "lengthy" or the fact that it is very lengthy, so I kept that part of the tradition. This also appeared to be appreciated last week by some other readers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Previously posted at top of newsroom

The Wikipedia Signpost have decide that you should not be able to read commentary on the problems with censorship. This is the first time commentary has been censored from the Wikipedia Signpost, however, evidently, speaking out against Jimbo Wales' actions in the recent Commons debacle is too controversial.

Since I started editing Wikipedia, I've created literally hundreds of Featured pictures, a dozen or so Featured articles, a couple Featured portals, a featured list, and various other things.

What has my reward been?

I've been harassed, bullied, and generally treated like dirt. An arbcom case was opened by Charles Matthews, then a sitting arbitrator, to punish me for not immediately agreeing to his request to reconsider a block, with no additional information than "I think it's a good idea". I instead sought opinions on ANI, and so Charles Matthews got his friends in the Arbcom to harass me for three months. After two months, they decided that they really should have sought other means of dispute resolution, and opened an RfC... which came out firmly in my decfense. This wasn't what they wanted, so they ignored it, attacked those who spoke out against me, and did what they wanted

It took a year for the Arbcom to finally agree to withdraw the case, replacing it with an apology, and detailing the many procedural and ethical lapses.

More recently, I've been blocked for having an arbcom statement slightly over the limit - while I was in the middle of a lengthy rewrite. The other user I was in dispute with also had a statement over the limit throughout that time... and was never so much as warned.

Wikipedia treats its users like shit, but, ironically, only the long-time experienced users. If you ever begin to become jaded, your upset at Wikipedia will be used to implement more injustices.

Here we see an example. At the start of the news cycle, I wrote an editorial, following the Signpost's stated guideance for such. When it was done, I was told that they no longer publish editorials, and, instead of raising a fuss, I offered to simply publish it as a comment to stories, and the thread discussing it was closed.

Two hours before publication, the editor of the Signpost deleted the comment, without telling anyone. I objected; he had participated in the discussion, and the discussion had been closed for nearly a week, with the comment ready for publication throughout that time. I had dropped my insistence on publication of editorials, or any attempt to revise the article into a non-editorial overview, based on what I had seen as the agreement.

Now, not only is talking about censorship censored, but even a private complaint about at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&action=historysubmit&diff=375694073&oldid=375693486 editor making grossly inaccurate personal attacks against me, based on patently false allegations, has been censored.

I quit. Both the Signpost, and Wikipedia.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting your grievances at the top of the Signpost's newsroom and on talk pages is not a "private complaint." In fact, you've been rather obnoxious about everything, which is why other editors have told you not to use the Signpost as your own personal megaphone. The Wales deletions were previously covered by the Signpost, perhaps with not as much zeal as you'd like. Posting your views as a comment to a news story that doesn't even mention the deletions isn't the appropriate place, and you know it. The bottom line is that you wanted attention and the community wouldn't give it to you. Grow up. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not helping. Quite a few of us are hoping Adam will wake up tomorrow morning and feel differently—forgive and forget. We need him at F and A. Tony (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting embarrassing and ridiculous. Stop positioning yourself as a victim. You shouldn't be editing Wikipedia expecting "reward", that's not what it's about, and you should damn well know that.

Regarding your opinion piece, the fact is that it was simply not the right sort of content that the Signpost publishes. There's a reason we are known as a reliable, respected source of information - and it's not because of "censorship", as you put it - it's because we are careful to maintain a standard, and your piece was in utter disregard of that. We take a step back from Wikidrama and stay level-headed.

You noted the existence of the Opinion Desk, but instead of listing your piece there for consideration by other editors, you added it to the next issue without any discussion. The opinion guidelines state only that essays should be "fact-based and well researched, and should not be unnecessarily inflammatory in tone", yet you managed to adhere to none of those requirements. You then posted an entire essay on the talk page of an unrelated article. How could this have possibly been acceptable? If I have a problem with Tree, would I post a message to Talk:Face?

I know nothing about your troubles with ArbCom, but if your behaviour here is anything to go by, I'm not surprised you had a difficult time with them. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving my comment here, from the "In the news" discussion section (where I don't think it was usefully placed), so the following is in reply to bahamut0013's comment over there:

Agreed. (And for doG's sake, please give diffs/links when complaining. I had to dig all this out.) Imho, This is a good Signpost opinion essay, and this is a good editorial; but your submission reads more like a pure angry tubthumping rant (And I say that as someone who agrees that Jimbo mishandled the situation, but who doesn't expect an apology). I'm not sure what to make of the "censored" section, but each of the paragraphs there has a problem I could complain about.

I recommend some breathing and stretching and nature. That usually helps my own cynicism and mutterings to clear up for a few hours :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretzels: I know nothing about your troubles with ArbCom, but if your behaviour here is anything to go by, I'm not surprised you had a difficult time with them. Pretzels, Adam's time before ArbCom and the conduct of his case was marked by some truly appalling behaviour on the part of the Committee. That the Committee's that followed had to dragged kicking and screaming to admit that the case was a travesty is a matter which should leave them feeling considerable shame. Whatever anyone might think of Adam's proposed contribution to Signpost (which, for the record, I haven't even read), the ArbCom case was heavily criticised at the time and even more heavily criticised since. The fact was that Adam's "difficult time" owed far more to the poor conduct of the arbitrators and their pathetic case management than it did to anything Adam did. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Inception and Lucid dream

I've just noticed an interesting little fact that might pick the curiosity of Signpost writers as well. The number of page views[2] for the Lucid dream article has been increasing almost exponentially since the release date of the movie Inception. Gulmammad | ^talk 00:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

More than 10,000 hits on the 10 May edition; other interesting stats

Dear colleagues, I've used Henryk's article-traffic counter to do a little research on page visits to The Signpost. I had imagined that that only a small proportion of hits would occur after the end of each publication week—that reader interest in each edition would subside dramatically after subscription notices are posted for the subsequent edition. This is strikingly not the case. I looked at hits for each SP page in two editions—3 and 10 May—during two publication weeks and in the seven weeks after each. I chose these editions because they were different in composition: both included five of the six core SP pages (the Technology report was on hiatus in both weeks); but while 3 May had only a book review as an "extra" feature, 10 May was dominated by extra features.

The first graph shows the number of hits in the publication week alone for the two editions; the second graph shows the post-publication hits as a percentage of the original publication-week hits. In both graphs (call them Figs 1 and 2), the subtitles for each week are divided by a slash—first 3 May (red bars), and then 10 May (blue bars).

Conclusions and questions:

• Both Figs show how popular The Signpost is. For 10 May, there were 7,900 hits during the week (Fig. 1); this was boosted to a total of > 10,600 by hits since that week (Fig. 2), still rising. For 3 May, the figures are 6,145 and 8,464, respectively.
• It does look as though the presence of big-hit stories, whether core or extra, suppresses the readership of other stories, particularly the core stories. This might explain the marked fall-off in visits to many 10 May stories (blue) compared with the 3 May edition (red) in Fig. 1. It could be that when there are bit-hit stories, readers jump straight to these and earmark the other pages for later catch-up or don't read them at all. A larger sample would be required to work this out.
• Fig. 2: For both editions, post-publication hits have added more than 30% to the total number of page visits. Why? Do readers bookmark SP articles that interest them and return over the subsequent month or two? Do they access whole previous editions in one go from the subscription notice on their talk page?
• Fig. 1 shows that when porn is the topic, hit-rates go off the dial during the week. (An analysis of recent editions—yet to be posted—shows a similar effect when pedophilia or objectionable material are in the subtitle.) However, the effect is short-lived: retrospective interest is below average as a proportion of publication-week interest (Fig. 2).
• iPhone app and Vector rollout was popular during publication week.
• The topics of WP books, in both NAN and its stand-alone article, was of remarkably enduring interest after publication week (Fig. 2). Why?
• The greater overall hit-rate for 10 May suggests that either the presence of extra features, the particular topics of porn and WP books, or a combination of both, boost readership. A larger sample would be needed to confirm this.
• There is a possibility that top-left placement on the contents list boosts readership: unsure.

As an adjunct to Fig. 1, for the 10 May edition only, here is a breakdown of the fall-offs from the publication week (= 100%) through three periods expressed as day ranges, beginning Day 8. The figures are for the average number of hits per day during each period. The most recent range (49–63 days after end of publication week) has a seven-day hole in it (see limitations), so actually extends to 70 days. The slight upwards kink in the WP-book-related hits in the last period may be statistical noise: I cannot explain it.

Limitations:

• The traffic counter had a nervous breakdown two weeks ago; no data could be drawn from that week.
• The traffic counter may not be highly accurate anyway.
• The sample of just two editions is small. Tony (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really cool. Thanks for doing some hard-core research and drawing up some nice graphs. I feel there may have been other confounding factors influencing the difference in overall readership between the May 3 and May 10 issue (that's close to exam and graduation time for many colleges and high schools in the northern hemisphere). I hope you continue to expand the sample with a more issues as we go along so we can get an even clearer picture. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Henrik's tool is based off data from domas's dammit.lt site. Please see some recent revelations regarding that data here and here. (Note: I didn't read the above in its entirety, please forgive me if you took this into account. I'm just trying to spread the word about this news.) Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Killion. Looks like May might have been less prone to packet loss, and that other months might be underestimating rather than overestimating hits. If the actual additional hits after publication week are even higher than I counted, it is yet more remarkable; I was more concerned the counts might have been overestimates, so this is kind of good news. Also, the emphasis on comparing within May should not be too vulnerable to distortions, I hope. I left a note on Henryk's talk page with a link to here.Tony (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the work! Some additional remarks:

• The hits for the single-page view also need to be taken into account somehow.
• Some background noise from spiders is to be expected, but it shouldn't be too high (compare e.g. [3]).
• "Wikipedia books launched worldwide" was separately linked in Wikipedia:Article alerts/News, in an announcement that "PediaPress is giving away 100 free books". This page, in turn, is transcluded in many hundred WikiProject pages.
• As said by Tony, the sample size is still too small for some general conclusions, but the results certainly pose interesting questions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Return to Contents" links broken

...in each and every article, it seems. They point to Wikipedia:WikipediaSignpost/Archives/[date of issue], but I haven't been able to find where exactly that missing space between Wikipedia and Signpost ought to be edited in; those templates are too complex for me. Can someone please fix it? Waltham, The Duke of 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oopsy, mea culpa (and I could have sworn it worked for me before?!?). It was trimming the space. Try now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And lo and behold, the links have broken off their unannounced strike and resumed their regular duties. Thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a writer to do WP Report on WP Universities

We left a note on the talk page of WikiProject Universities to see if there were enough active editors to warrant an interview for a WikiProject Report article in August (right before many universities in the Northern hemisphere go back to class). Sure enough, there was plenty of interest and they're wanting to know when we'll start the interview. Unfortunately, the writer who was going to conduct the interview had to take a break. Would anyone be interested in taking this up? I would do it myself, but I'm a little biased toward this project. The article's date is flexible and we have all the resources you'd need to create the Report. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would offer, but I'm on dial-up from Thursday to Sunday. Even if you're "close" to the topic, you could still recognise that and compensate (?). You could just put a short disclaimer in italics at the bottom. That's similar to what TV journalists do at the non-commercial networks. Tony (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This specific Report doesn't have to be done this week, so if you'd like to do it on the days when you've got a better internet connection, that's definitely an option. We've got a couple other projects scheduled this month, so there's no rush. Plus, you can just post the questions on one of the Report's sandboxes and the WP Universities folks will answer it on their own time. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Mono will be doing it...  ℳono  04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the new signature. Tony (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  ℳono  17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

In our mad rush near the end of the cycle, we get edit conflicts way to often. We really need to use maintenance templates. Specialised templates with nav links to newsroom, etc. would be very useful.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How's this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Inuse Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. I think this should help.--Forty two^{the answer?} 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted FAs per week.

I think I've mentioned before that I read the Wikipedia Signpost for updates on what's going on with the featured content in Wikipedia. Every time a former FA is delisted, for instance, I like to check the article's talkpage, to see if it ever was featured on the main page. I think it might be interesting to note which ones got their turn on the main page at some point and which ones never did. The same ought to be done for former featured images. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Making people aware of the existence of the Signpost

Are they? Or is it possible to be a relatively active Wikipedian and yet not heard of the Signpost? Would an informative note on the Village Pump help? I'm of the opinion that it might, but I haven't thought it through very well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And is subscription available yet on sister projects? Tony (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. But I have recently started announcing new issues on Foundation-l[4] (a suggestion by Phoebe), which I assume is read by a lot of people from sister projects.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for the subscription service to be made available at other WPs and at Commons? Who developed the subscription bot/facility first? Perhaps they might know. I think this is of prime importance in fostering interwiki collaboration. And let's face it, English is the international language, so we are in a unique position in being readable by many users throughout WMF projects. Tony (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride mentioned the possibility of creating a cross-project delivery bot, so that people could sign up on Meta and receive talk page deliveries on their home wikis.--ragesoss (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way and for what it's worth, there was a very short-lived delivery service on Wikinews in 2007 (n:User:HermesBot, six users signed up for it).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is best-placed to create such a cross-project delivery bot? It could eventually multiply our readership significantly. Um ... English is the international language ... and more foreign readers will inevitably feed into a more international scope, which is a good thing IMO. Tony (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How will we actually move to Wikipedia:Signpost?

A question for those who know more about moving things around here than I do: how are we actually going to achieve moving our pages now we've renamed to just "The Signpost". There was consensus to put the main page at Wikipedia:Signpost. I can move some smaller pages without breaking things, but how will we adjust to publishing issues at Wikipedia:Signpost/2010-08-09, for example? — Pretzels ^Hii! 13:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Move them all, keep redirects. Could be easy as, with just a few critical templates to update. Or, if people aren't keen on keeping the redirects, fixing a few broken links and a few more templates to patch up. Or, if people aren't keen on moving back issues, mainly just template work. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to duplicate a new set of templates, as the current ones look for the next/prev article/issue at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/***. Should be fine to keep the redirects for now, it's just sensitive things like the subscription list and complex templates like Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signpost/Issue that must be moved with care. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure duplicating templates in necessary - they can be coded to be backwards compatible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you go about that? The only way I can imagine is setting them to check whether the article date is past whatever switchover we use, and outputting Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or Wikipedia:Signpost depending on that - which would be unwieldy and very repetitive. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entire Signpost (it goes on for several pages). Could we get a bot to move it all? -Mabeenot (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should move older issues, as they are the Wikipedia Signpost. I think only our future issues, and pages like the Newsroom etc, should be under Wikipedia:Signpost. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just check for existence. It either exists at one location or the other. I already implemented it for the contents page. And yes, we could get a bot to move them (or AWB it). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good solution. The new location needs to take precedence though, in the event that both exist. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Archives backlog

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010 (extended, with ToC) end in late June. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! (Actually it went until the end of July, but the July issues were erroneously labeled with June.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, that would be my doing. Sorry.

By the way, why are we still linking dates in the Signpost archives? I hardly think that the FBI seal take-down request can be compared in terms of newsworthiness with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet so much seems to be made of their common date of 9 August. Waltham, The Duke of 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG version of logo

• 
  PNG
• 
  SVG

I've created a SVG version of the Signpost's logo, however, it is a little heavier than the current one. I was wondering if anyone had any opinion on this.  ʄlame  23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mono, like I said here, the SVG looks a bit too dense in my browser. The logo (masthead) needs to be usable in small sizes, too, such as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe/Message, and e.g. the fine white gap in the "S" was barely visible there in my browser when I tried the SVG - with the PNG, it is well visible.

By the way, moving the PNG to Commons appears to have broken it temporarily on some pages here; e.g. some section pages of the current Signpost issue might need purging.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to recreate an image as SVG without the source font. I'll let Mabeenot know; he should be able to get me a copy of the font.  ℳono  23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The font is "Old English" (not the Monotype version). Send me an email and I'll get it to you. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The SVG version looks slightly smaller. Can it be at least the same size? Width across the page is the important dimension, to me. Tony (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist needs to step down or be replaced

Concerns raised on 8-9 Aug (permalink here, see Arbitration Report section) have gone without resolution and totally ignored by Ncmvocalist, except for a title change (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost current SignPost link). At least 4 users raised significant concerns in the permalink version; some examples "less neutral" by Ks0stm, "heavily biased" by Jéské_Couriano (Jeremy), "editorialising" by Ohconfucius, and "non-neutral" by myself. Also note the 18:59, 9 Aug edit summary by Jéské_Couriano where he says [5] "Ncmvocalist, you need to resign or go on sabbatical from the Signpost, or at least the Arb report". Ncmvocalist is simply not the right person for this job. I'm in no way asking for pro-Arbcom reporting, just neutrality and objectivity, and that we haven't been getting since he began doing SignPost reports. I ask for him to step down or be replaced. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I rarely read the Signpost, but I agree that Ncmvocalist seems to be overstepping from neutral reporting into editorializing at times (e.g. "results ... appear to have been dumped" from 2010-07-19 issue, which is still under discussion). –xeno^talk 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm noting a distinctive anti-AC slant from Ncmvocalist, and it's scaring me a bit. The job of any respectable journalist is to state the facts neutrally and without bias. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree they could be more neutral (along the lines of the reports from a few months ago, a gold standard of neutrality to which they could be compared), they have gotten somewhat better in the last couple weeks (at least perceptively so, after the August 8-9 report or the week before that...I seem to have lost my original comment where I said they sounded less neutral than before, but I remember typing it up...the only comment I can find is where I said August 8-9's report was more neutral sounding than the previous weeks). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Arbcom decisions are often controversial, and it should be by no means exempt from criticism. However, it seems that NCMV may be using his position here on SP to indulge in subtle – but often not-so-subtle – Arbcom bashing that could lend suspicion to some hidden agenda on his part. This clearly needs to stop. If he cannot be neutral, or at least give greater semblance of neutrality in reporting, he needs to step down. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• For me, the Arb reports are, if anything, too pro ArbCom. I've never seen any criticism of ArbCom reported, in spite of the fact that there is always plenty going around.--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Arb report is supposed to be an article with journalistic standards, not an editorial, Kotniski. Criticism or praise of ArbCom would be editorializing. We should merely be reporting on the status of cases, case overviews, and (if necessary) major developments that affect the case's course. What I'm seeing from Ncmvocalist as of late only convinces me that he's not the right man for the column. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I don't want the editor to criticize or praise ArbCom, I want him to report on other people's criticism or praising of ArbCom.--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an example, Jeske Couriano was unhappy with my reporting last week because I reported that a case was technically open - he insisted it was either open or close (that's all there is to it), but evidently, at least one of the participants from the case disagreed with him [6]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for such alternative interpretations appearing, but in this instance, I just didn't understand what you meant by "technically open". I think you're doing a good job and am not joining in the calls for you to stop doing it, but as a piece of hopefully constructive criticism, you could be more explicit in your statements so we can all understand clearly what you mean. --Kotniski (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, the type of feedback you've provided is very helpful (and appreciated) for that very reason - it's constructive. I'll definitely work on that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew exactly what he meant by "technically open". It's an apt description of where things stood last week. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But you knew about the case, right? --Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, no? :) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SignPost reporting should be neutral, not editorializing POINTy tabloidism. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. And I think everyone knows I'm not Ncmvocalist's biggest fan (I think at various points I've suggested that he too often gets involved in things he should abstain from, that he gives the appearance of being excessively officious in his dealings with others, and that he would make a terrible arbcom/CU/you name it clerk and thus needs to stop trying to clerk things, among other observations), but nevertheless I think he's doing a fair job here. Is the Signpost a house organ or an impartial source, or is it a muckraker? I want impartial. That includes highlighting things like the fact that a case is only "technically" open. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think that Ncmvocalist's coverage has had its problems, but that the Arbitration Report is being taken in a positive direction. On the problems, I think the current report on the R&I case understates the progress made in the last week. I think the phrase "technically open", whilst apt, could and probably should have been further explained for this week's report. However, I think these are areas for improvement and I disagree with Rlevse's call for Ncmvocalist to be replaced. The previous reports were, in my opinion, not worth reading; banal, bland, and reading like ArbCom-authored press releases, they did not give any real flavour of attitudes towards ArbCom and of ArbCom actions. Those reports were a base from which to build, not an ideal to which to aspire. Coverage should reflect what ArbCom is doing and how that is being received, and whilst that might be uncomfortable for arbitrators at times, that is not a reason to sanitise reports. Balanced, factually-supported, and fair - sure; but still informative and a worthwhile read. Maybe a helpful innovation might be the introduction of a separate editorial section, allowing for explicit Op-Ed commentary; if that happens, however, Rlevse might want to brace himself because true Op-Ed commentary will be much more direct and critical at times than anything Ncmvocalist has reported to date. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Life is too short to get to true consensus NPOV on signpost. I think Ncmv is generally doing a good job for the community and I for one can live with a little interpretive opinion from time to time whether I agree or not; especially if the alternative is bland bland bland. As for the above, can I nominate the sentence "The job of any respectable journalist is to state the facts neutrally and without bias" as the most naive proclamation ever made in good faith on Wikipedia, either that or so subtlely ironic that I misread the straight face, or possibly meaning "no journalist is respectable" which may be more in line with public perception. --BozMo talk 11:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I hadn't been following Signpost coverage, but Ncmvocalist left me a note asking me to look into this. I'm involved in the Climate Change case. I also have many years of experience in journalism (believe that or not, as you will; and I'm sure I'm not the only editor around here who could say that). A few points:
  • Signpost is a small operation in a small community and sponsored in a way that those who are reported on can -- as is being done here -- exert influence on coverage. All this means that the prudent, practical course for the writers is to be very conservative in tone. Headlines are not terribly important when the length of the report is so short, so (purely for practical reasons) I recommend taking the duller, more conservative course with the headline here. It isn't a matter of whether the headline is "biased" or not. By giving way on minor issues such as headlines over pieces only one short paragraph long, you keep your powder dry for more important issues. All reporters face pressure about bias, and they all have to pick their battles.
  • On the merits (the principle), Ncmvocalist is utterly blameless regarding the headline. It simply isn't biased to say litigation is "tricky". The CC case is obviously trickier than most ArbCom cases. That's all I took that word to mean, and you editors, including you, Rlevese, need to assume good faith. If you have other reasons to complain about bias, address them directly.
  • Rlevese, you are not only wrong, you are being much too sensitive and as an arbitrator you should be more cautious with your own language, because the Signpost's integrity depends on it not being seen as truckling too much to influential Wikipedians, like arbitrators. Everyone knows Signpost isn't totally independent, but if it's to be trusted to any degree, everyone who is covered by it needs to put up with irritations in its reports and only complain about clear-cut problems and only do it in a reserved way. This page is much closer to an ArbCom case page than to anything else on Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind.
  • Often, one complaint of bias is only the latest in a number of similar complaints alleging the same bias by the same person or group about the same subject. I notice that there have been previous complaints, including one here [7] about using the word "dumped". As with the headline, Ncm, please choose more conservative language or you're simply not going to be able to do this reporting. Do Signpost reporters have editors? Toning down language is a typical editing function, done by someone without a dog in the fight, so those edits tend to be accepted more easily by the reporter. When people being covered want to make changes to make coverage of them easier, it is very difficult for the reporter to accept those changes.
  • When it comes to questions of tone (such as using words like "dumped" or "tricky") you always have to balance the goals of sparking reader interest and attention with the possibility that your words will be interpreted as biased. In a smaller, in-house publication like Signpost, that balance is much closer to the latter than the former.
  • Ncm, If you start a blog, you can do essentially the same reporting, with the words you want, but with independence. If you're good at it and keep doing it, you'll eventually get quite a following. And you won't need to tone down your language. OpenWikiBlogPlanet and PlanetWikipedia display Wikipedia-related blogs, and that's one good way to get attention for it. It would involve somewhat more work than contributing to Signpost, but not much more, and it would probably be a lot more satisfying.
  • Everybody, if you want Signpost to be trusted, especially by the more clued-in editors, you need to tone down your criticism considerably. Emotional statements alleging bias are particularly toxic for Signpost because if you win, you run a strong risk of looking like you've only won control, not won on the merits. You'll have damaged Signpost's credibility, destroying the village to save it. This is not worth doing over use of words like "dumped" or "tricky".

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent analysis. Thanks for taking the time to spell the issues out so clearly. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, excellent analysis and good advice. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Signpost has already lost lots of credibility because NCM's problems with arbcom go back to 2008 and choosing him to report on arbcom was an obvious error and his bias shows, that's what needs toned down. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB's analysis is, dare I say it, fair and balanced. This episode is one example of a trend I've noticed lately, which is that people are starting to take themselves way too seriously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boris. RLevse, if you are not happy with Signpost reporting, the Towncrier is (or easily could be) over here. Or just write a letter to the editor to clarify your position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist asked me have a look at this thread because I previously complained about his Tricky backronymn. I objected to the backronym (tho it's better than the old TRoLL one) but I think the person who puts in the effort to write these reports are free to ignore such objections if they don't think them valid, and call the reports what they want. As for the content being biased and mentioning delays - I don't see the problem and prefer Ncmvocalist's reports' content to the old style. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-19t10:42z

From reading the comments above it seems like he is angering people on both sides of the issues pretty close to equally. If I am right about that, than he should continue doing the writing like he has been, taking in constructive comments and adjusting if necessary. He has asked a few people to review his work, this is what actually led me to this page, which to me is a good sign that he is trying to be open minded about everything. I think everyone should back off a bit and allow him a good dose of assume good faith. I read the Signpost and I can't say I can find anything specifically wrong with his writings. Like everything written like this, common sense should be used while reading. Just my two cents about this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse raaaage. I agree with most of the other comments in this section: if there are specific issues with the writing, point them out and they can be discussed. A generic "I don't like it!" isn't helpful, productive, or constructive. Having read some of the older Signposts, I can't really say I've ever seen the writing as particularly neutral. It still beats out that piece-of-shit Llama publication any day of the week, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Ohconfucius, above. In addition, there has always been a gaping hole in the reportage of ArbCom cases: the case texts themselves are long and bureaucratic—there are good reasons for this (although I'd do it a little differently myself). What the community needs are succinct, neutral, accurate versions of the background and judgement of each case. The Signpost is the ideal place to make ArbCom cases more accessible to the community. That should be the focus of the Report. Tony (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Tony. I find the ArbCom cases nigh impossible to read. I think that it would be good if The Signpost explained the cases in a more accessible way. Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Subscription

Please remove the IPs from the list of subscribers. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 09:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking bandwith :) ResMar 04:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. Lots of IPs + monthly newspaper subscription = bandwith hog. I wouldn't support such a move, though. ResMar 01:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's weekly. :) Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 12:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should prevent IPs from subscribing to the post.--Forty two^{the answer?} 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PERF. –xeno^talk 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We shouldnt. ResMar 15:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why IP contributors shouldn't be allowed to subscribe. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatches

It's listed as "On hiatus," but I decided to go ahead and write up Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Dispatches. It's a list of pertinent editor tools. Only partially complete right now. Feel free to add good ones I've missed. Hope it's not too bad of an article :) ResMar 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh. I like it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but I feel it might be more useful if it was a series of features on related tools, with maybe even key tools (eg AWB) getting their own report. That would be more digestible for readers, as well as easier to write, and then from reader feedback you can cover tools that have been overlooked. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but all this comes after. The article should stand as is (it's meant to be a dispatch thing anyway), perhaps we can start a series. While I'm interested in that regard I in no way see it as a reason to delay the publishing of the article. ResMar 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, because I think the present article would be better split into several, as part of a series. This is great idea, but it can be made better by restructuring it as a series. If there is no appetite for that, a one-off is still good, but the decision needs to be made now. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I decide that it should be posted as is and the possible serialization be put under discussion for later. I'm sure that's not worth a mule's eye though. ResMar 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not run this Dispatch yet, and in the future, please coordinate your work at the Dispatch Workshop to avoid the problems present here. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a better analogy would be "to avoid the problems here and instead face them head on there." ResMar 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, not to dismiss the many great contributions of the Dispatch Workshop to the Signpost in the past, but considering that only four of its "weekly columns" have appeared after May 2009, the last one five months ago, the project can safely be described as inactive (if not historical). It should also be remarked that some content that used to be in Dispatches - interview-style statements by FC contributors - has since been integrated into the "Features and admins" section (by Tony and others).

Still, I agree it would have been better if Resident Mario had posted a notification on the Workshop's talk page. However, while feedback by others is important to ensure the quality of Signpost articles, this is already being provided in the Newsroom, and it is not entirely clear to me why it is necessary in addition that a Signpost writer who just wants to contribute an interesting article has to submit to the authority of not less than five different users whose last significant contribution to the Signpost appears to lay way in the past ("It should be reviewed at minimum by Ucucha, Dispenser, Dr pda, Gary King and Ealdgyth"[8]).

That being said, it is questionable whether the article even falls under the scope of Dispatches ("issues concerning featured content and related pages"): None of the tools presented is particular to featured content processes. If such a rubric is needed at all, the tutorial series seems closer in kind.

As the article is not time-critical in any way, and there have been several suggestions for expansion or improvement in the Newsroom, I think there isn't much harm in postponing it until the following issue (August 30). Therefore - after discussing this with Resident Mario - I won't publish it in the upcoming (August 23) issue.

If this somewhat unpleasant discussion has the positive side effect of reviving the Dispatch Workshop, that would be great.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. I have plently of ideas and have pinged Rurchfish, Cirt on some (responses: I'll see if I can finish it and yeah, I'll think about it), but this acidic response is seriously offputting, and otherwise I doubt anyone will contribute regularly beyond the ocassional "special-event" post. ResMar 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Dispatches warranted so much heated and emotional discussion. I feel it's important that we remember to welcome new contributors rather than biting them because of small misunderstandings. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope by new, you're not referering to me? I started editing in Dec 08, thats not new on any order. I feeel my qualifications are not an issue. Anyway, I think that the article is perfectly placed as is. A tutorial is meant to teach you something. What does this teach? ResMar 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note Looking away from the "content tools" idea for a second, Raul654 (talk · contribs) said he would write something up about the 3000th FA, which was recently promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

ResMar can feel this getting pushed back another week. Oh well, at least it's something important. What was the 3000th FA? ResMar 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Raul654#FA milestone. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess I should be proud that the product of about an hour of work on my part has come around to a scalding debate on the community's part. This discussion needs to be centralized. Here, the the article's talk, or notes. Don't we have to delete the talk page once its up for publication anyway? ResMar 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)