Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-11-02 05:34:11.
October 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03	November 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01	December 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05

The Signpost currently has 5601 articles, 701 issues, and 13656 pages (4455 talk and 9201 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 14 (2024-10-19) ·

issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)

Articles and pageviews for 2024-10-19

Pageviews for 2024-10-19 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Traffic report A scream breaks the still of the night 445 479 479 479 479 479 479 Recent research "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper 2514 2632 2632 2632 2632 2632 2632 News and notes One election's end, another election's beginning 1834 1910 1910 1910 1910 1910 1910 In the media Off to the races! Wikipedia wins! 1759 1807 1807 1807 1807 1807 1807 Humour The Newspaper Editors 2939 3009 3009 3009 3009 3009 3009 Crossword Spilled Coffee Mug 424 471 471 471 471 471 471 Contest A WikiCup for the underdeveloped world 1713 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 1736 Book review The Editors 1242 1276 1276 1276 1276 1276 1276

Previous issue: 2024-09-26 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2024-09-26

Pageviews for 2024-09-26 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Community view Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus 3693 4043 4350 4356 4356 4356 4356 Traffic report Jump in the line, rock your body in time 619 803 986 989 989 989 989 Serendipity A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics 1946 2162 2447 2455 2455 2455 2455 Recent research Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors 1956 2274 2515 2527 2527 2527 2527 Opinion asilvering's RfA debriefing 2129 2327 2479 2490 2490 2490 2490 News and notes Are you ready for admin elections? 821 1001 1219 1228 1228 1228 1228 In the media Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" 2043 2790 3552 3569 3569 3569 3569 Gallery Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? 5287 5729 6145 6157 6157 6157 6157

WikiConference report

With publication soon (?) I just noticed that the gallery in the WikiConference report includes an image of a community banned editor. Maybe this should be removed? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User is community banned in five Wikimedia projects. A week ago the user was found not guilty for purposes of global ban.

meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)

User was not WMF banned as stated in the removal diff at special:diff/1220698473

The user and case are complicated but they were welcome to the conference. I am fine with anyone's decision to edit the gallery. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I wish I'd known about that discussion on Meta, I would have contributed my observations that they multi-voted using at least four socks in one of our elections. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for next issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me, the biggest matter is still the Joint Statement on Palestine — which, by the way, has just survived a request for deletion. Considering the Maher situation, and the fact that the N&N section is pretty crowded already, how do you think we should move in this case?

[P.S. We could open a whole separate discussion for this last topic, if needed.] Oltrepier (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in here since this was specifically brought to my attention. I'm going to steer clear of the Joint Statement thing, I can feel my blood pressure rising just reading the title and I know I'm not anywhere near objective on this subject.

I think we could use more discussion of how the Foundation is applying ML, and especially in what way it will be visible to the community. Are AI assisted editing platforms anywhere on the horizon, for example to do research on under-construction articles. That would be neat, but I expect it's more about internal metrics and other business-y things of that ilk. I have some technical knowledge in this area and could perhaps contribute. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

(continued) Skimmed the Albon interview and it was super lite. You're welcome to take that on, but I don't see a lot of substance there to talk about. He mentioned that the community has ben developing tools in this area for a while, I presume he's talking about WP:ORES but here's the rub. I challenge anybody not familiar with it to find the ORES "article quality" score for any randomly selected article. It's virtually impossible for someone not familiar with its existence. The Foundation needs to be more decisive about how to expose this, let alone more ambitious integration like I described briefly above. IMHO what this is about, is a really under-featured environment for content contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, I hope this isn't a repeat of something I said before (I looked and couldn't find it). There was a really interesting discussion in 2020 around just one example of what AI tools could do, as either a force for good, or evil, in locating bad actors. Of course @Bluerasberry: had an insightful comment, which I will try to summarize in my own words: The problem with ML tools isn't one of dreaming up useful tools, it's reimagining our whole relationship to the tech, and to each other, and having some leadership around how to approach this from a foundational perspective. That's lowercase f foundational at the end. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Yeah, in the end I've just opted for quickly mentioning the Albon interview in the In the Media column, and we'll probably leave it at that...

I have absolutely zero experience with the subject, so your perspective looks very interesting! Oltrepier (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Vote for UCCCC ends 9 May; publication 11 May

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

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

I wish we could report the election before it is over but more than that, I wish elections were disallowed without confirming a schedule and giving notice. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I requested an extension of the voting timeline so that we would have time to report it.

meta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024#Request_to_extend_voting_deadline

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No extension.

Other elections to announce

• Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election - meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024 schedule was posted a couple of days ago, starts 8 May
• Ratification of the Movement Charter - meta:Movement_Charter#Timeline schedule just posted a couple of days ago, election in June

I am a bit uncomfortable that these elections, which are designed to seat the decision makers for the direction of hundreds of millions of dollars, are just now scheduled. Also considering the stakes, there is not much communication plan in place. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

20:6+1 Special report

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

@Bri I was about to write a short recap for it, actually!

Sounds good to me if we're going to mark it as a "Special report" of sorts, since the News and Notes column has already several articles locked in and might become too bloated otherwise.

Speaking of News and notes, check my previous message, please... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, you might want to go check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/RfA reform for examples of how we handled it before; at least one of those pieces had the page title "RFA reform" but many did not. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Thank you, that will definitely be useful! Oltrepier (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you all know that I've finally finished my article, and it's now ready for copyediting! Oltrepier (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Er, I've just realized that I forgot to add a pic to the article...

Have you got any interesting suggestions that might fit in (either in the Commons catalogue or AI-generated)? Oltrepier (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Will someone come to the rescue? (real photograph)
• One day, will the last administrator walk away and turn out the lights? (AI generated)
  One day, will the last administrator walk away and turn out the lights? (AI generated)
• 
  Again the literal rescue theme. . . (real)

Well, going with the "coming to the rescue" theme, you could use this Featured picture. Or if you have any ideas for what the AI generated image would look like, drop a note here and I can work with our sometimes-Signpost helper prompt engineer/artist, and gen some up this evening (US Pacific time). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a stab at an AI generated image depicting departure of administrators. Obviously we could tweak this a million ways. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that people in general are currently quite unhappy about image model output, as every time we've used them in the last few months it has garnered sharply negative commentary. Well, everyone loved them in '22, so I don't really get it. I think it is mostly a copyright law politics thing, and probably in a few years nobody will remember or care what this opinion was or why anybody held it, but for the time being it may be wise to avoid using it if possible. jp×g🗯️ 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Adiminisrator"? Omphalographer (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an AI thing. All four of the generated images had errors. Here's another. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• File:Male administrator leaving empty room.jpg

Reporting a likely bug in the Newsroom

Is it me, or does the Newsroom's table cite the "Special report" column twice? It must be a graphical bug... Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it for now, but if the table is auto-regenerated after publication, we should fix the underlying problem, probably with a template or a script. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Fine, thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The way the table's generated is by keeping an automatic list of all the regular columns, then doing a database query to get everything else out of that name space that isn't included in the initial list. It shouldn't be double-including stuff, I'll take a look. jp×g🗯️ 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Pitch: story on WikiCite and the upcoming Wikidata graph split

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

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

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

• User:Bluerasberry/signpost_wikicite

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

@Bri @JPxG @HaeB @Smallbones How do you feel about this? Oltrepier (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I was preparing a response and my computer glitched and ate it (ah the joys of HTML form editing). Now I'm kind of peeved and don't want to type it all back in. I'd say yes, it should go in the issue, but it was hard for me to read and could use a sharper op-ed framing. Maybe Bluerasberry was trying to stay away from this for one reason or another related to Wikipedian in Residence status.

The central problem with reading, especially for a lay (non-IT fluent) person, it's going to be very hard to figure out what the editorial "ask" is. Is it a pitch for funding? A pitch for more direction on tech? More community involvement in tech funding-related questions? I think the thesis might be there in the final paragraph -- it's hard to get non-technical people to direct a technically oriented solution. But maybe we're kind of compounding the problem with a lengthy hard to read piece on the technical heart of the issue.

So, in summary, maybe Bluerasberry needs a clear green light to make this a personal perspective. It could be a full-on op-ed on the decisions that made Wikidata inefficient for the Wikicite tool, and ways forward. Or else, we dial it back into a dry but concise framing of the technical issue with Wikidata, which I think is a scaling issue with a system that's being pushed beyond its intended limits, or (same thing really) beyond the combination of architecture choices and and computing resources devoted to the assumed uses. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me consider more. It is not a pitch for funding. It is a pitch for direction in tech and community involvement.

I think the story is that Wikidata may need 10 million dollars to grow. Medium-sized data uploads, small by many standards, were halted in 2017. I do not think it could be fixed before 2030. It is really had to figure out. Let me think more.

The personal part is that although the data halting has affected 100s of people, I have a university project which has probed more deeply at the nature of the problem. My inability to upload data is my issue, but also, there is no room for other datasets of similar size. Let me think more. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying, I didn't think it was a pitch for funding. But a naive reader could have seen the headline and the author, and made an assumption. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I shared this article with the Wikimedia Foundation team who are organizing the graph split. I incorporated their comments and they supported my submission.

I may make further changes in response to comments if I get them before publication, but I would like to submit this for the next issue as an editorial. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

But what article name?

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

20:6+1 In the media

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

Ok, my article is now ready for copy-editing!

Sadly, I'm afraid I can't help much more for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks quite good, and should be enough to go off. I do not know what's going on at the French Wikipedia either; I will make a go at spinning something out from the links we have there. jp×g🗯️ 00:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier and JPxG: Y I posted the French story. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Piccy

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

• 

20:6+1 News and notes

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

It seems like there may be a lot to get through. Nevertheless, I will give it a shot. jp×g🗯️ 00:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Although I won't be able to work on it, I just wanted to mention that the lead story about the WMF's annual report should be the only thing missing in this column before it's finally ready! Oltrepier (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Have now filled in the section on the WMF and Endowment reports. Andreas JN466 17:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• ​There has been a global ban of a fr-WP and Commons admin with more than a million edits. Looks like some info as to why is available here. Probably worth a blurb. Sdkb ^talk 15:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Sdkb Honestly, I don't know if we'll be able to sneak it in this time, but surely it will be an interesting feat for the next issue! Oltrepier (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  It'll be stale news by next issue, but up to you. It probably only needs a sentence or maybe two. Sdkb ^talk 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Sdkb I noticed that @Bri added a quick mention about the ban to N&N, so it should be all good now. Anyway, thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  According to the French admin board you link, he was first blocked for six months and then indeffed because he made a death threat off-wiki. Andreas JN466 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we still don't have coverage of the OWID gadget situation, so I'll try to add a brief note within the new 3 hours (unless you happen to have something written up offline already, JPxG).

For context, the gadget was covered in the last issue already (and coincidentally or not, the WMF announcement came a day after we published). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

20:6+1 Arbitration report

There will be one from me. jp×g🗯️ 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am about four thousand words deep, but it's currently 5am. I will be on tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 12:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I see it was started. Looking forward to what comes next. By the way I stepped in as the regular contributor for that feature for a while, I think it was late 2017–2020. It took a lot of time to carefully review and follow the cases, then even more to write up a concise summary for what could often be voluminous commentary and final decision. The absence of a regular, dedicated person now is represented in the lack of writing. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I heard online that we were smoking cigars in an oak-paneled room and deliberately refusing to write arb reports so as to suppress the truth about the brave fighters of Wikipediocracy; that version of the story makes us sound really powerful and well-staffed, so maybe we should go with that. jp×g🗯️ 01:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a cigar fan, but I could imagine myself enjoying a Bourbon in that oak paneled room. It will have to wait for my big raise as a Signpost editor, though. How's that coming along, anyway? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sidetracked by having to translate like 800 fr.wp AN/I threads about "le wokisme" [sic]... jp×g🗯️ 08:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should have one on the COI case that ended recently, if there is time. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: User:Ixtal/AAA

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

Next "In the media" (2)

Cf. this request for an uninvolved proofreader to do some fact-checking. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I wrote the section. Are you comfortable editing the text in the way you proposed? I encourage you to do so. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I reacted a bit. If you are comfortable editing then give it a go. I reworded the text to clarify that the Friction magazine article is an open letter by LGBT+ Wikipedia editors, so it is a source with a perspective and not attempting neutrality. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed the POV tag without treating any of the three problems:

1. The recently-created essay Wikipedia:No queerphobia and its related deletion discussion reflect the current mood at English Wikipedia. The close of that discussion said that folks agree that people can write pretty much whatever they want in essay space as long as it does not violate policy. This may or may not reflect a "mood" or a "zeitgeist".
2. Deadnaming is the term for the hateful practice of referring to a transgender person by their former name in unnecessary contexts. That's not what Merriam Webster (§) or en.wp say.
3. The results of that poll were narrowly in favor of including the deadnames. This "summary" fails to mention that the birth name must be reported in RS for it to be mentioned anywhere (generally in the early biography section only), and that the person must have become notable primarily while still using their birthname for it to be mentioned in the infobox or in the lede. NB: it is about the lede that there was a narrow majority of people saying that a person who became notable while still using their birthname should have their birthname mentioned in the lede. For the rest of the votes (excepting typography) there was no mention of a "narrow" majority.

I would expect these matters to be addressed before removing the POV tag. I will not become a co-author of this summary: I think it's up to the Signpost to factcheck these points. This is enough of a hot-button issue that I don't think this should be done sloppily.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls I checked with BR and got the go-ahead to boldly copy edit it for them and just did so, I believe I addressed your points.

1. I changed it to "perhaps reflects" - I do think it does as despite that consensus, many people wanted it deleted for various reasons, and many took issues with certain definitions given for queerphobia. The zeitgeist can't be observed in the essay or the close, but the edit history, talk page, and discussions. Since it was a discussion of what constitutes queerphobia and how to handle it, I think it bears mention.
2. I removed that sentence, the discussion wasn't about deadnaming (ie, using the deadname), it was about mentioning the deadname, which is different.
3. I added more details of the poll to better represent what it concluded, as well as gave context of the style guidelines that preceded it.

I generally added some more details, dealt with some voice issues, and restructued a little so the flow is

• an open letter was published about this poll ->
• why the poll was held + what happened in this poll + who else covered it ->
• here's what the open letter said about this poll and frwiki in general+ an here's an open letter saying similar things from 2 years ago
• -> here's how it's been discussed crosswiki

Please let me know if that addresses your POV / fact check concerns! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

While it was an improvement, unsurprisingly the author of the essay mentioned in the first paragraph is not likely to be the most neutral commentator on their essay. I made a couple sample edits, both of which had mistakes in them (the second, while better than the first, failed to mention that the poll was on fr.wp when the subject was introduced! lol) Nevertheless, both of these versions are less POV than the current text, which now claims that a user essay and the discussion of its deletion (for "I don't like it" or redundancy reasons) are comparable to a poll that had hundreds of participants discussing a considerably more weighty BLP issue than whether users have the right to express their opinions in an essay. As I said, I don't wish to co-author the article. Nevertheless you are welcome to incorporate any suggestions you find useful and discard the rest. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a fair point with regard to my neutrality lol. As such, I tried not to expand on it and focus on presenting it for other editors to interpret as they see fit. I don't think they're comparable fully, but two key similarities pop up imo 1) they're an attempt to garner community consensus with regards to how to respect LGBT people 2) both had charges of canvassing. I've just made some edits to try and add more details in general and incorporate your suggestions. I moved the no queerphobes mention to the bottom, disclosed I edited it, and added mention of the DRV. I also added a mention of the latest MOS:DEADNAME discussion which seems pertinent. As it stands, the essay/MFD/DRV and the deadname RFC were the most high profile closed cases regarding transphobia/naming recently on enwiki, I was also tempted to mention the Telegraph discussion on RSN but since it's ongoing think it's probably better not to. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I can only answer some of the questions (and apologize for the block of text I made you proofread and French rabbit hole we led you down lol).

• LGBTQUIA+ seems to be Friction Magazine's acronym, not the authors of the letter. It's used to say Following numerous press articles on the treatment of trans people on Wikipedia, several LGBTQUIA+ contributors have written this open letter that we are publishing today on Friction Magazine. in the summary while the editors themselves use the shorter acronym and the byline is for "Contributeurices LGBTQIA+". I realized that only after adding a clarification to the article the U is for "undefined" (and, weirdly enough but neither here nor there, seems to primarily be a West Coast US thing).
• wrt "contributeurices", AFAICT it's a gender neutral reclamation, stemming from discussions in French linguistic circles over the last few years on refeminization (French dropped the feminine forms of many words and kept only the masculine, there have been efforts in recent years 1) to reintroduce the feminine and 2) to hybridize the feminine and masculine). The french feminine form of contributors would be "contributrices" [1][2][3] ie: this is some weird French thing, like if we combined "actors" and "actresses" as "actoresses" to show the group was gender neutral

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Essay May 14 2024

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

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I don't know if we'll be able to sneak it in, to be honest, although it's @JPxG who has the last say. Still, you've done a pretty good job! Oltrepier (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that essay might be too controversial to feature on The Signpost. Nothing against the essay, of course, but a lot of people do not like it, even those who oppose queerphobia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both your inputs! I'm not super invested in having it in the Signpost, but part of the reason I wrote it in Wikipedia: space was because I wanted to get more feedback and have it be a community essay (at this point, enough editors have chimed in I don't consider it mine). As such, reposting it in the signpost seems like a good way to get some more input and perhaps raise awareness about issues of discrimination me and other editors feel we have to deal with. I'm not sure if its mention in the "In the Media" makes it superfluous for the issue or a good supplement, and I'm not sure how controversial it will be and how much of a factor that is (though I doubt it'll stir more controversy than a certain humour essay lol). All we can do is wait for the editor in chief (who, IIRC, indirectly contributed to it through suggestions I incorporated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think another one of these past deadline in the same issue would have given me a coronary, maybe next one. I was pretty stuffed with the arb report also, orz././... jp×g🗯️ 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Included in issue 8 draft

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

@Bri, JPxG, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, and Oltrepier: Pinging everyone involved in the above discussion. This essay remains extremely controversial and a dispute surrounding it is currently at ANI. I still think that this essay is too controversial to feature in The Signpost, and we should leave it out. I say this as someone who strongly opposes queerphobia. I simply think that it would be a bad idea for The Signpost to get involved here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not extremely controversial, there was a pretty clear consensus (or two) it met all the policies and guidelines of a userspace essay. Some don't like it, but that holds for all essays. Considering it would be published either right before or at the start of pride month, it seems the perfect time to publish an essay on queerphobia on enwiki and what policies provide recourse written by queer editors. The ANI case is going to a SNOW close GENSEX TBAN for the editor who opened it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I was just worried about the angry shouting spreading to the Signpost comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A reasonable worry lol, I think it'll be a tempest in a teapot though. It's already been at MFD, DRV, AE, ANI, the LGBT noticeboard, and etc so I would hope all who've got strong feeling on it either way have got it out of their system and some fresh perspectives will arise. There will probably be some arguing in the comments, but I'm guessing it will look like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-05-16/Comix and everyone will move on quickly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

20:6+1 Traffic report

It looks like the upcoming Top25 report, through May 11, is under development but nearly done. Should we pull it in to the current issue, in its current state? Preview at Special:Permalink/1223973452. My concern is if we don't put it in this issue, it will be pretty stale by the time the next issue of The Signpost comes out. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't want to put 4 again. But the Signpost is already late, will post the latest one. igordebraga ≠ 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Next news and notes - WMF reports

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

Thank you for your note, Julia. Grüße, Andreas JN466 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

May 16th out

Boy oh boy -- anyway I am running the script now, single talk page should be showing up at the top of the newsroom talk (in a cot) like always -- 4am, time to sloop. Ready to see which of the things from this issue the pitchforks get out for !!!! jp×g🗯️ 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Arbitration report and everything else.

I set the next issue date to 31 May, so we could have two in this month. I hope this is OK with the Newsroom team. Reminder: we have a major US holiday the weekend just prior to the publication date, which is a three-day weekend for many, so we shouldn't depend on high team productivity at that time – at least from United Statesians. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed WMF submissions

NGunasena (WMF) notes here that there is currently a substantial backlog of WMF-submitted Signpost contributions. This seems unfortunate, since we should be encouraging and rewarding foundation folks who seek to communicate with us here, and since some are old enough at this point that they may have gone out of date. Would the editors be able to try to clear this backlog over the coming issues? (That said, we should of course be careful, since someone at the foundation doing particular work is by definition unable to report on that work as an outsider, so we should use opinion or other perspective labels as needed.) Sdkb ^talk 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Of the couple on there, there are two that sat for some time. Currently one of those is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report and I've reached out to the authors to confirm it's still up-to-date -- it looks ready to run basically.

Another is User:ELappen (WMF)/Signpost draft -- could this go into N&N? @Bri and Jayen466: take a look if you can, and see if this can be slotted into N&N in the Form 990 section, or if it would be better to have it be its own piece. jp×g🗯️ 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think as it stands, it is too short for a standalone section. My suggestion would be to add it in a quote box or as a separate section in the next N&N. Andreas JN466 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I moved the draft by ELappen (WMF) to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. @Bluerasberry: for simplicity of attribution do you want to re-enter "WikiConference in Indiana" info at the new page? You can refer to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes 0 for your text. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, Sdkb: The FAQ is a moving target. Publication is planned for tomorrow now, right? Andreas JN466 14:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Comix

this is annoyingly unfunny. ltbdl (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Humor is subjective. This seems non-actionable unless you have something to offer regarding editorial process...? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

kill the comics section, that could work. ltbdl (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a serious question: are you actually requesting that we stop having a feature because you personally find some of the stuff in it dumb? If this is the case, then no.

If this is not the case, and you are just saying you think it sucks, then I appreciate the feedback and apologize for writing and running so much anodyne stuff. I have done my best within the constraints we must operate in. jp×g🗯️ 07:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

it'd get rid of a lot of drama, probably. ltbdl (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Turn on your monitor... jp×g🗯️ 06:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

20:7+1 Recent research

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

Working on this and aiming to have something publishable in the next couple of hours. (Do we know that the actual publication deadline is likely to be?)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, while I've been trying to do my share to move some other blockers for this issue in the state of elevated deadline fluidity, I haven't yet gotten around to wrapping RR up - will have something ready in six hours or less from now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Very sorry, I got home much later than anticipated last night (and focused on helping to remove other blockers for this issue earlier today). I'm very curious about the answer to Smallbones' question below, but aim to have RR publishable in about three hours in any case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ph.D. thesis a first?

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

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

20:8+1 Special report

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

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

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

We are abjectly grateful to anyone who writes anything at all about the governance of the non-English projects. Sounds interesting, in particular given the Orsini affair and the recent de-stewarding of one of the Italian stewards. Andreas JN466 14:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466 I'm very happy to read this! So, do you think it deserves its own Special report? Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Up to the EiC, but there aren't too many projects that have an ArbCom, so if a major project creates one, yes, I'd say that's worth writing about. I also wonder if User:Gitz6666 might like to contribute some views or info to any article; he is a native speaker. Andreas JN466 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid that a contribution from me would be perceived as inappropraite, even inflammatory, by many it.wiki users. Notable points about the Italian ArbCom: 1. It has limited purview and doesn't deal with deflagging/desysopping. 2. The arbitrators' opinions/votes and their reasoning are kept secret from the community (see here at No 4), which I find quite extraordinary since arbitrators are elected by the community. I've written my views on this in my blog here (in Italian). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gitz. Oltrepier, Gitz's comments would certainly be worth referring to. How is your Italian? Andreas JN466 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466 Uhhh, it's actually my native language, so... quite good! : D Oltrepier (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Superb! I didn't know. Andreas JN466 12:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Andreas that this sounds like a valuable topic to cover. FWIW, regarding the steward election outcome: I posted a brief summary here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for 20:7+1 Opinion

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

@Bri Sounds funny, go for it! Oltrepier (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Might also want to look for "delve into", "dive into", "humorous", and the dreaded four-bolded-bulletpoint style. jp×g🗯️ 11:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this needs more writing especially in the intro. I will hold it over to next issue. If anybody wants to collaborate on it, jump in! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

you may be interested in the AI catchphrases as recorded by WikiProject AI Cleanup! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, very nice. Maybe this is more than a semi joke after all. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

20:7+1 featured content

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

There is actually already a preload template for "Featured content", at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC.

As for why it fails to load when using the "Start article" button for that section at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: It looks like this may be a bug introduced by some recent whitespace-optimizing edits, I have followed up on the template's talk page with more details.

In the meantime, this link should work in lieu of the "Start article" button: [4].

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That newsroom task template is probably the single most convoluted piece of code I have ever seen on this site. That and the draft template are horrifyingly complicated layers-on-layers-on-layers that only barely work -- I have no idea why that wasn't supplying the & in the URL (since it wasn't actually constructing the URL directly in text -- it was invoking a tag!). Well, anyway, that was the only department that had a preload AND and "editintro", so I just merged the two into one.

Honestly, what needs to happen is that the whole template needs to be rewritten, perhaps with more than one layer, because there is just too much stuff going on in one template, even when you have the seven or eight (!!!) layers of {}{}}}{{}}{}{}}}{{}}{}{{}{}}{{}{} gobbledygook properly indented so as to see wth is going on. jp×g🗯️ 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The button for 'Next featured content' works just fine for me, BTW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read JPxG's comment that you are replying to? He implemented a stopgap measure by removing support for the "edittintro" parameter entirely from the template; and moving the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC/intro into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC. The actual bug is still unsolved, but if folks can live without such advice in the editnotice (i.e. are fine with deleting it from the preloaded content every time), I think that's an OK solution for the time being.

(By the way, JPxG, I don't think your deletion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC/intro satisfies G6. And policies aside, it caused lots of links to break; and the history may be worth preserving too, e.g. so that we know who authored these exhortations to the authors of "Featured content". I suggest restoring the page and replacing it with a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This was the fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it (even if this fix is obsolete now due to JPxG's removal of the entire parameter).

Just out of technical curiosity though: What's the reason that this "|" was needed here but - apparently - not in earlier versions (example)?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any links that broke. There were 23 in WLH, but all of the template links were from it being in a bulleted list in the documentation page for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload. The rest were from automatically generated index pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index, which uses SQL reports and exists solely to make finding pages easier and allow RelatedChanges links) -- none of them are an actual use or reference to the page. A insource search returns some obsolete (not linked to or transcluded anywhere and untouched for about a decade) templates like this and this. It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template -- we have other editnotices but they don't work like this. The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost -- for health's sake I think that our editnotices should be in the editnotice template, not all of them in there except for one which is randomly at a different page using an entirely different MediaWiki extension invoked through a different unrelated family of templates. jp×g🗯️ 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have fixed this -- it's just at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content now, with the rest of the editnotices. jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the history. (Again, while I'm not saying it's equally important to preserve every little bit, in this case it does matter to know that these instructions were authored by Adam back in 2014, for example.)

I do not see any links that broke - not sure how you mean that, e.g. the WLH list currently still points to a broken link from this talk page discussion (which btw provides some additional context on how that intro came to be). And as you indicate, there may be other uses that are not visible in WLH. I seem to recall various prior discussions on this page about disruptions to the Signpost's processes caused by over-eager admins deleting pages in what they considered to be uncontroversial cleanup. In some cases this might have been avoided by simply leaving a redirect in place.

The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost - actually there are more such pages which are not yet included there (and which we might want to mark as obsolete), e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (news) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (opinion) ...

It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template - I hear you, but is there a more elegant solution for generating those buttons in the newsroom page ? In any case, that kind of convoluted and opaque codebase is yet another reason to tread carefully with non-essential cleanup operations and merely optical improvements, unless one is prepared to check thoroughly that they don't lead to unintended consequences.

Apropos, similar for your recent deletion/move without redirect of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Op-Ed [5], which created no less than 1029 broken links (sure, many of them in less-trafficked talk page archives, but on the other hand I suspect that for this story in particular there will also be relevant interwiki and off-wiki links; it was an op-ed of some long-term impact on academic research). I am not taking sides in the beef between you and Chris troutman on whether that should be "Op-Ed" or "Op-ed" ;-) But if you feel the need to spend time on such minor spelling tweaks deep in the archives, at least also spend the time to check that the setting for leaving a redirect is enabled when you conduct the page move.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

50 "Op-Ed"s, 192 "Op-ed"s. It actually doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me -- the only reason I de-moved it was because retitling it killed the pageviews. The pageviews API doesn't move its records to a new title when a page gets moved, so every article that has its URL changed after the fact will end up with 0 pageviews. This is, incidentally, why there remain so many of them with inconsistent capitalization; it'd break links and pageview stats to retitle them now :( jp×g🗯️ 06:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As for redirects in article space, there are none -- zero -- they simply should not exist and not be created. There is a lot of stuff that depends on there being a one-to-one relationship between pages in Signpost article space and Signpost articles (most of the exceptions were either ghost articles, which existed at a date and department but had never actually been published, or ghost issues, which had an issue page but no articles). Out of about six thousand articles, there were only a few redirects in the first place, and almost all of them had zero incoming links (although I manually retargeted the ones that did have incoming links when I was fixing them). jp×g🗯️ 10:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for pointing me there! i'll chat with Generalissima ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sawyer777 and Generalissima: are you still aiming to have it ready in time for this issue? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

realistically probably not, at least on my part. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: I can finish my part within the next few hours, but that only would include the FAs, not the FPs and FLs. This might be worth splitting anyhow, due to how massive the list is — a smaller FA list will give the FL/FPs in the backlog more time to shine. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

agreed - i really like your FA showcase piece, and doing a more comprehensive piece on the rest of the FC promoted in the last 7 months will be more feasible for next issue i think (i will also give a write-up of whatever new FAs are promoted between now & then) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: @Sawyer777: @JPxG: User:Generalissima/Signpost test okay so as far as I can tell it's done here - how do I submit this thing? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Ideally use the "Start article" button for Featured content at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom (which, as discussed above, was broken earlier but should now work again). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB @Generalissima @Sawyer777 I just wanted to let you know that I've copied your draft into the "Featured content" column, so now you can start copyediting and expanding them from there! Oltrepier (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for last minute 20:7+1 Humour

But who's the duck?

It's in here, and starts with An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet walk into a bar... ☆ Bri (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

i saw that & thought it was funny too! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

How about a slight change:

'An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet were discussing possible changes to RfA

• The admin says, "It doesn't really matter to me. I'm already an admin."
• The IP says, "It doesn't really matter to me. I can't pass RfA. I know I already tried."
• The sockpuppet says, "It doesn't really matter to me. I've had exactly the same experiences as each of you."

@Levivich:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Or another, Larry and Jimbo walk into a bar...

• The bartender says "What'll you have, boys?"
• Larry says, "Well, I must have left my wallet back at the hotel. I was hoping Jimbo was buying"
• Jimbo says, "Larry, you're sitting on it. But I'll tell you what. We'll have a contest. The loser buys the drinks. We'll let the bartender be the judge. Who had, and still has, the greatest influence on the development of Wikipedia??"
• Larry says, "You're on Jimbo. At the very start of Wikipedia, I was totally in charge and I started all the important policies and guidelines. Jimbo, you were just the blood-sucking capitalist - not that blood-sucking capitalists aren't sometimes needed."
• Jimbo says, "Larry, I was totally in charge. I let you go after less than a year. And you bought my story of not having any money to pay you after I said that you could stick around and edit for no pay. Sucker!"
• Just then Maryana Iskander walks in and joins Larry and Jimbo at the bar. Larry explains the bet and asks her if she wants to be a part of it.
• Maryana says in a Texas drawl, "Sure. I first want to thank you boys for all your contributions (however long ago that was, and however small the Wiki was then). But I'm in charge now, cow pokes."
• Just then Levivich walks in and joins the group. Maryana explains the bet and asks him if he wants in.
• Levivich says, "Sure. You guys are probably thinking 'how could a mere editor be as important to to Wikipedia than you.' Well, you exec types don't amount to a hill of beans around Wikipedia. And I am the most important editor on Wikipedia because nobody could survive this place without a laugh every once in awhile. And I'm the only one who knows how to tell a joke."
• The bartender tells them all to buy Levivich a drink.
• Levivich says, "Oh! No, thanks. I don't drink."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Levivich's joke is way funnier than these two. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Levivich's original joke was the funniest. I also think we should run it if we haven't yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I prepared Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour with the original version of the bar joke. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Announcing_the_first_Universal_Code_of_Conduct_Coordinating_Committee

Should be covered. If not in this issue, the next. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Already covered in News & notes. The problem is they say they can't get a quorum to do anything for maybe 6 months. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Next In the media

• AI and Wikipedia preserve endangered languages [6] (Nature)
• Another Wiki-notable house for sale [7] (Yahoo! Lifestyle)
• Wikipedia traffic down almost 25% [8] (KFGO-AM (Fargo, North Dakota))
• Link rot examined [9] (Pew Research Center)
• Tools to fight disinfo (Indian Express)

Just holding some things here instead of shoehorning into issue #8. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Summarized the Pew Research Paper a bit using AI, in case you don't wish to read it all: User:Josve05a/link rot. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems the AI missed the part that is directly about Wikipedia [10]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding #1, the linked article is a bit obtuse about the Wikipedia angle, the paper itself is clearer [11] and should be in scope for RR.

The Yahoo/Patriot Ledger items seems a rather trivial mention of Wikipedia (Among U.S. counties, Essex County in Massachusetts has the highest number of preserved First Period architecture buildings, according to Wikipedia), not sure this is worth covering.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HaeB on the house, especially since we don't have an article about it or the Harrub's Corner local historic district that it's in. It's also in Plymouth County, not Essex County. So if the only connection is that WP has one good argument (age) to say it's notable, but might need more sources, I'll vote "no".

The "Wikipedia traffic down almost 25%" however might be the top section. There's a link to an opinion piece NO MORE WORLDS LEFT TO CONQUER that has an interesting take on the situation, roughly "we're all doomed." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My usual question

Is there an estimated time for publication?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent question. We need to resume the recent conversation about deadlines (the approach taken in the last few issues is evidently not working), but let's focus on getting this issue out first. In that regard, it may be useful to list the remaining blockers so that people can chip in to help get it over the finish line:

On the Newsroom page, various items are shown as missing steps (including RR, for which I am on the hook myself, see above, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Concept, plus ). The draft for "Featured content" discussed above and this newly approved submission still need to be moved under /Next issue/ and formatted/copyedited.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow morning. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That morning (in whatever timezone) has come and gone... RR should be publishable now (copyedits still welcome), but it seems we have made no progress on the other open items. Would anyone else like to help out with those (see above)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, isn't @JPxG's "Concept" column just a test page for now?

I can take care of those two articles real quick, though! @HaeB Oltrepier (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I should note, though, that there's no "Deletion report" column available, so I don't really know where to place @Svampesky's draft... Oltrepier (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Documentation needs to be improved, but the way it works is that every 24 hours a bot automatically scans for everything in /Next issue/* and adds a column for it in the Newsroom (you can also trigger it manually). jp×g🗯️ 20:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I picked 'Deletion report' because that was one of the red links in the next issue page... Mid-way through typing this reply I saw that the issue has been solved. :-) Svampesky (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, clicking on "Show" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Concept reveals some content which makes it seem more likely that it's another of those obtuse humor pieces. But I'm not opposed to leaving it out of this issue, just saying that it is currently lined up for publication in the "Article status" list. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB @Svampesky What about the "In focus" or the "Opinion" columns for that draft? They should both be a good compromise! Oltrepier (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found a way to move it into the intended column. Thank you for the tip, @JPxG! Oltrepier (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning everyone 😩 time 2 publish jp×g🗯️ 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

20:7+1 Disinformation report

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

See the discussion over at the Submissions page, in particular [12]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

With regards to issues raised:

• @JPxG you said the article concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece - I think you're mistaking me for somebody else and would like clarification on that, I joined after he left and there is no ongoing dispute - I nommed an AFD for a POVFORK of his that quickly passed 8-1 (the 1 being an editor who encouraged him to write it) in a week in January this year and openly state so in the article.
• You said Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. - which really confused me: this is a disinformation report piece on how a professional quack used WP to promote WP:FRINGE views, attack his opponents, edit with COIs, and sockpuppet. He is notable IRL for his anti-trans advocacy per multiple RS, and this was an investigative piece about how he used WP to do it. ARBCOM ignored evidence of issues with his editing and didn't give him any real sanctions (just an IBAN, which he still ignored with socks). What do you believe I'm leaving out and where should the focus be?
• @Bri, perhaps the image of Clarke Institute of Psychiatry could work?

Being real, I poured over a dozen hours into researching and writing this collaboratively because I've wanted to write for the signpost for a while and really enjoyed getting to work with y'all in the last issue and thought this would be the perfect piece to kick off pride.

I take great pride (pun unintended) in my writing and my ability to factor in constructive criticism so I'd deeply appreciate being given the chance to respond to specific issues and update the article so it can be signpost worthy by this issue if that's possible. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you are extending the discussion to this page instead of continuing it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia (where you had already posted a lengthy response to the same editorial decision by JPxG earlier)? This is veering into WP:BLUDGEON territory. I have followed up with some further remarks on your user talk page.

getting to work with y'all in the last issue - not quite sure about the precise meaning of work with y'all here (I for example wasn't involved there at all). But it's interesting that you bring this up, considering that concerns were voiced there already (by SashiRolls, an editor not involved in the discussion about your current piece), e.g. about fact-checking and your decision to insert yourself in the Signpost's journalistic reporting on the deletion debates about your own essay. May I also that remind you that this apparently highly controversial essay is still slated to run in this Signpost issue. So it's not exactly like your views in this area (WP:GENSEX, which you had previously been topic-banned from and are still under various restrictions for, in particular regarding articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed) are being censored by the Signpost.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm out for the evening and want to briefly reply.

• I tried to summarize rather than extend the discussion here, particularly my main point that JPxG seems to be operating on a case of mistaken identity.
• Y'all in this case meant the signpost as a whole
• Sashirolls raised issues with the draft before I was involved, called my edits addressing their concerns an improvement and more NPOV, noted some remaining concerns, and I addressed them.
• I don't believe I am being censored and don't object to the piece being declined, I'm just trying to figure out 1) was that because of the mistaken identity and 2) is there time to fix the piece and outstanding problems in it before the issue's published.

My apologies, I didn't mean to bludgeon, just trying to clarify the process because I'm unused to it. I appreciate your candor and advice, and will reply to the message on my talk page tomorrow. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB: thanks for that link. So if the E-in-C already said the high-res picture of an individual under the headline "Disinformation" is a bad idea that makes two of us.

I think part of what makes the picture itself such an issue for me is its personalization of the dispute. It's as if to say "this *particular guy*, right here in this picture, is creating disinformation". Rather than, here's an examination of the phenomenon of (potential) disinformation through the lens of this particular back-and-forth. I'm OK with the latter, though it might be borderline OK-ness.

To resolve the picture quandary, first I sought something that shows the search-for-truth image somewhere in Commons. The closest I came up with was File:Disinformation vs Misinformation.svg, and it didn't hit the mark for me. Both because of the excessive graphic business, and because it seems to imply the truth is a constant that one can just measure a position against, instead of recognizing the importance of the process of conducting the conversation to discover a consensus position. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read the linked comment by JPxG in full, in particular the "declined" on top. I understand we are not going to run this piece. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @HaeB, Bri, and JPxG: getting it right is better than being hasty without consensus. Publishing the current issue is the only concern for now but I would like to support YFNS in revising this article for resubmission to a future issue of Signpost. I can be off the mark with my enthusiasm to support LGBT+ pieces in June as pride month, but I still feel that there are elements of good disinformation reporting here.

Here is what I request of you all -

• Put a burden of duty on me to collaborate with YFNS to meet any standard you set, then reconsider the submission in a future issue. I suggest some improvements below.
• Recognize that YFNS is a Wikipedia editor of about 2 years. There was some misunderstanding, and I can vouch that this user came years after the 2013 ArbCom ruling, and was not part of that.

Here are some improvements that I can arrange -

• Any of you veto any concepts in the piece that make it too complex, and we will get a shorter focused article
• I can get other volunteers to confirm fact-checking of claims and sign off
• I can get someone with editorial experience to sign off on appropriate tone for the voice of The Signpost
• Anything else you suggest

I am not asking for pre-acceptance, but I would like to support YFNS in taking another chance at submission with a plan for improvement. Thanks. Also, thanks for your sincere and thoughtful reviews. You are making the right calls and are all great collaborators. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I felt the most egregious thing in it is there's a sort of 'compare and contrast' between 'see this person was bad and got away with it' and 'but this other person wasn't as bad and didn't get away with it'. So figure our what is the central thesis of the piece, and focus on that. If it's that Cantor 'got away with it' for too long, maybe it's worth checking in on every time someone tried to bring Cantor to one of the drama boards. Did people raise COI/SELFPROMO concerns? If not why not? If yes, were these ignored? What policies existed at the time?

If it's a general piece trying to do a general history of antitranswhateverism activism on Wikipedia, then you can't single out Cantor, and have to look at other antitranswhateverism activists on Wikipedia and see if those got sanctioned too, and in light of what policies, keeping in mind that we don't usually ban people for viewpoints, but rather for behavioural issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Couple strange bugs

Noticed two weird things during publication.

1. This -- idk what happened -- it looks like SPS.js just threw out a bunch of the params. I know this draft had been made some way other than by filling in the draft template so maybe there was something off?
2. Recent research had the old draft template (without the picture params prefilled) so I had to copypasta them from somewhere. I don't know if I just forgot to change the preload for that one or what (I thought I had gotten them all)...

jp×g🗯️ 13:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed both of these manually so there's no issue now -- anyway the issue is published and the single talk page is up and it's 6:30 am so I am going to sleep but I think its good to note this stuff here jp×g🗯️ 13:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG Thank you for flagging those, and for the rest of your service! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Re 2.: Thanks for the ping, but that's not a bug - there simply hasn't been a preload template for RR so far, it has always been created manually, (almost) every month for over a decade. So I'm unsure why alarm bells are suddenly being rung about this ;) (Didn't you make a list of "all" preload templates precisely so that one can check which preloads exist and which don't?) I'll make one now since it does have its uses, but we should always be able to add required formatting manually if necessary (see also below).

Re 1. and this draft had been made some way other than by filling in the draft template: I guess one could blame the editor who manually formatted the page in preparation for publication, yes. But it should always be possible to create story pages without using the preload.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

20:8+1 In the media

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

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

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

@HaeB @Jayen466 Maybe, we could even kill two birds with one stone and mention this into the Special report I originally suggested, even though it's quite an ambitious task... How do you feel about that? Oltrepier (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

New script for formatting images

I have written User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js for the sake of more easily formatting images in draft templates (and by extension, on the front page/archives). Basically, if you add this to your commons:Special:MyPage/common.js

importScript('w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js'); // Backlink: [[w:User:JPxG/signpost-filetools.js]]

it will give you a little dropdown on file pages that says "Use in Signpost template", which will gives you the properly formatted params for using that as an article image in a draft template. That is, from this file, you can generate this:

 |piccyfilename      = File:Čerčany, nádraží, z nástupiště k budově.jpg
 |piccy-credits      = ŠJů
 |piccy-license      = CC BY 4.0 
 |piccy-xoffset      = 0
 |piccy-yoffset      = 0
 |piccy-scaling      = 403
}}

This automatically parses out the filename, author, and license shorthand, as well as computing the minimum scaling to make it fit in the snippet templates.

Of course, the scaling can be whatever (if you want the article's piccy to be a small portion of an image), but the minimum scaling factor (i.e. to have it fit in the 300x300 box and not be letterboxed) is computable from resolution -- for portrait-style images the minimum scaling number is 300 because MediaWiki prevents pillarboxing, but for landscape-style images it is some arbitrary number based on the aspect ratio (e.g. a 3:4 image sized as "300px" will be letterboxed with blank space below it, you have to scale it to at least 400... but Commons doesn't give aspect ratios on the file page, just resolutions, so this required manual computing every time... well, no more of that dumbness.

Anyway, if anybody wants to let me know if there is anything stupid or busted about this script, I am still expecting to have to revise it somewhat, although from clicking around on a few dozen random Commons files it seems pretty robust. jp×g🗯️ 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Movement Charter Ratification vote

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

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

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes

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

• meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#Request_reactions_to_Charter_for_Signpost_newsletter

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

• gradesheet for Summit versus Charter

I generally have this story under control but if anyone wants to help coordinate, especially by reaching out for community comment to anyone who will speak up, then please join. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Requested feedback from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikimedia_Movement_Charter_ratification_vote!_How_should_we_spend_a_billion_dollars?. I also requested help from the Wikimedia Summit organizing team but not sure what processes they have for collecting or soliciting feedback. I just thought they may somehow have plans to collect something. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

For your information: it was only the core Charter text that was published early. For a complete understanding, be aware of the publication/update of all supplementary documents still coming up on Monday June 18th. Ciell (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) (MCDC member)

@Ciell: I know you are on the drafting committee. Can you also get me brief comment from your committee on the extent to which you recommend ratification? Are you unanimous, to what extent do you feel that you fulfilled the dealbreaking demands, how would you interpret a "no" vote if it came to that? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

request for feedback and input

hi all. very pleased to see the recent message by @Blueraspberry, at meta:Talk:Movement_Charter#c-Bluerasberry-20240614153000-Request_reactions_to_Charter_for_Signpost_newsletter.

I would like to add to and support your request for feedback and input, from the community. in that note, may i please invite you to join the discussion, at the MS forums? the url is below. I consider this to be a highly valuable resource for the entire communuty to hold ongoing discussions. please feel free to make any comments here on this. thanks!

url: https://forum.movement-strategy.org/

thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)