Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Issue 11: Go

User:Chris troutman please publish. We will have an opportunity to read feedback on the 'From the editors' piece and make a deliberate response. I don't think anybody wants to use it as an excuse for poor writing and attacks, but rather as guidance to our own consciences. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

acknowledged. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, Bri and Chris Troutman, but it appears that the "From the editors" piece did not publish correctly. The original was published, not the new one. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FFS. I published the one marked ready for publication. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It may have been due to some mixups during the moves. Also, the essay was not moved back from here and was still labeled as "postponed". Unless I'm confused here, that was meant to be in the issue, though at least with this it seems to have been due to not being moved back. At least it's clear how to fix that, but I'm not sure what happened with the "From the editors". —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So, how to proceed? I doubt anything can be done about the subscription messages. The best suggestion I have is manually adding them to the issue and cleaning up, since I'm aware of no undo button here. If anyone already has a plan and is going to implement it, then okay, no need to waste time responding to me; however, this needs to be fixed promptly and I cannot do it myself, not least because I do not have extended move permissions or can delete pages. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: To my knowledge, nothing is in error, so no action is needed. Words like "postponed" mean what they say. As for the "editors" piece, the approved version is the one Kudpung didn't object to. Perhaps you should discuss your concerns with Bri. It's too late now, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed up the 'October original' title ... I guess the rest will stand. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the other "From the editors" draft did not publish, the page can be deleted now, Bri. Alternatively, it can run as next issue's "From the editors" or as a "Forum" column, but given the concerns already expressed about the draft, perhaps it should not.

Last issue, I feel that I was more a hindrance than a help, with my participation resulting in unproductive discussion, confusing page moves, and concerns about damaging the quality and reputation of The Signpost that were realized anyway by my suggestion botching the front page of the issue. For that, I am sorry. Hopefully, if I participate in the next issue, my doing so will not be so disruptive. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Publishing glitch

I assume this is one other artifact of the publishing glitch, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2018-10-28 says this is the upcoming issue. Can anybody fix? @Evad37 and Chris troutman: ?

Disregard, it fixed itself after a cache flush. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Early feedback

Fantastic reader response to the op-ed, "Wikipedia's Strickland affair". I think it shows how this sort of impassioned writing can affect our audience. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Small copy error

The sentence "if you look at the early versions of the male Nobel laureate biographies whose articles long before receiving the Nobel, a number of them were in worse shape than the Strickland draft that was declined in May" in "Wikipedia's Strickland affair" doesn't seem grammatical. I think the author meant to replace "whose" with "who had". I'm new here, so I'm not sure what the policies are for ammending something like that after publication.

Overall, the issue looked really good and was very interesting to read! - Sdkb (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sdkb, thanks for pointing that out. That was my fault, a result of me rewording the sentence, not that of the piece's author. As you likely know by now, Bri has since corrected my error. As for the "policies" pertaining to such corrections, there are none in the "policies and guidelines" sense. The closest to that is Content guidance § Errata (permanent link). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to offer a belated thank-you to the Signpost community for including my opinion on the Strickland incident in this month's issue. As you might imagine, it has been somewhat stressful dealing with the fallout from this over the last month, but I am encouraged by all the healthy conversation and grateful for the opportunity to present my perspective on these important issues.

I just have one comment for consideration — I was never asked if I wanted the piece to be shared this widely. That wasn't a problem in this case, as my answer would definitely have been yes, but I might have liked a chance to do a brief copyedit or update prior to publication. I'm fairly confident this was just an oversight, but if this is the usual practice it may be worth reconsidering. Again, not here to complain, but to say thanks! This is just a sidenote. Bradv 23:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, it started with this edit and we just plowed ahead. There should probably be a better way of making sure authors know their material is being used in The Signpost and as you say, copyedit or have a chance to comment. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have asked you, Bradv, though it is indeed "usual practice" to not alert the authors whose work is being republished in the "Essay" feature, which was where your essay was originally included (read more about what happened below). If you want me to explain why I did not feel compelled to ask you, and to explain the series of events leading up to including your essay, I can. Otherwise, I have omitted that for the sake of brevity, since multiple drafts have resulted in multiple paragraphs each time, all in response to statements that demand nothing more than this reply already provides. Thanks for the essay and for such a positive response to its inclusion despite the fact that I did not ask you about including it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Issue 12 (November)

First things first -- publishing date. November 22 is a big US holiday and 4-day weekend. But we usually like to publish on weekends. Would regular contribs be able to work towards a November 23 writing / November 25 publishing deadline? Or is November 30 / December 2 better? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine publishing whenever the next issue is ready. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have an article coming up for the next issue - of course depending on its acceptance. And a selected reprint from the archives that goes with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am good to go. Please note that I have changed my signature. Barbara ✐✉ 10:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to work with whatever deadlines are set; shortening the deadlines will primarily impact the writers, who will have less time to write. Whatever is decided, I strongly recommend that more time is given to the editing phase and that it becomes the new norm, Bri. Frankly, almost a month for writers to write their own piece, with only two days right before publication for editors to edit the entire issue, does not provide any urgency for writers while applying immense pressure on editors. It also makes the final days before publication far more hectic than they need to be, which increases the chances that an error will be made or overlooked. I think even five days for editing is stressful, but at least that allots enough time to edit the entire issue without feeling the need to rush it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If we want more time for the editors (good idea) then let's do November 24 writing deadline, then a week later – Saturday, December 1 – publication. The year's final issue can be Dec 22/Dec 29 publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! Barbara ✐✉ 22:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I can work with whatever deadline gets set; it doesn't matter if I get more time or less time to write because I always just write the whole thing the day before deadline anyway. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Essay

I noticed that the essay did not make it into the last issue (no big deal). Are we discontinuing this or was just not ready? Barbara ✐✉ 00:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

See above for some context, Barbara. To summarize what happened, however, the essay probably should have been published, but was not due to page moves and other changes to the issue. Ultimately, I consider it my fault, since I initially proposed changes to the issue on 24 October which included postponing the essay until next issue and replacing it with Bradv's "Strickland incident" essay. This was after the essay was already completely prepared for publication, over a week and a half before the deadline; and after I had also copy-edited it, as well. So, it had nothing to do with the essay you selected and everything to do with my proposal attempting to include Bradv's perspective on the Strickland incident. Anyway, there was support for my proposal, so I moved the original essay to here (where it currently still is), added the Strickland incident essay, and updated the newsroom, all on 25 October.

Two days later, on 27 October, Kudpung noted at the newsroom that the new Strickland incident essay was—in his assessment—not an essay and more an opinion piece. In response, Bri mentioned the problem here, to which I replied disputing that it was one. Right at the beginning of 28 October, Kudpung suggested the move again, this time here, and I replied, suggesting alternative options while deferring to the team. At that point, I was focused on copy-editing as much I could before publication, so I had no interest in distracting from that by quibbling about page placement. Much later in the day, only two hours before publication, Bri moved Bradv's piece to "Opinion" after moving the Wikidata piece to "Special report 2". As a result, there was nothing in the "Essay" slot.

During that time, I was working on what became my penultimate major edit of the issue, namely copy-editing the "Traffic report", and published it nearly an hour after Bri announced his intent to give the publication signal within the "next hour or so". 50 minutes later, I then added a prefatory note to Bradv's now-opinion piece (my final major edit) and never moved the postponed essay back. No one did, so it was not published. Were it not for the initial changes I proposed, which confused and complicated the entire issue, the essay would have been in the issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The only regret at this point is that I took up so much of your time in answering my question. Mistake or not, it really isn't insulting in the least nor am I offended. I thought our latest issue contained a good amount of content and I don't think anyone missed the essay article. Well, this can just moved to this month and published in the next issue. I like all the editing you all did. I don't know how obvious this is to anyone else, but I have NEVER worked with a group of editors that collaborated as smoothly as the Signpost staff and guest writers! It is so different that all my editing experiences elsewhere. Please consider going to Stockholm for the 2019 Wikimania so we can all meet. I plan attending (my first time) and would love to meet you all. Remember there are scholarships. Best Regards to you all, Barbara ✐✉ 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with explaining this; postmortem documentation is an important part of collaborative work, anyway. Perhaps providing this documentation will assist with preventing its recurrence or, if nothing else, be helpful to anyone reading the archives and seeking to understand why there was no "Essay" in that issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

We've experienced some problems due to rush for publication. The post-mortem is a good exercise. Another good thing, beyond extending the editing period when we can double-check each other's work, is a short checklist which I'll start working on. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

In the media

Lead story describes a lawsuit concerning German Wikipedia. I think we should get our terminology straight about who was sued and eventually ordered to take some actions. Wikipedia is not a legal entity, but WMF is. I think it also merits discussion of what a German court can order a U.S. corporation to do.

If this statement from the litigant's law firm is true, it could have explosive effects on Wikipedia : "it is not sufficient for a Wikipedia entry to merely refer to television programmes or press articles in which the claims were first made or further disseminated. The decisive factor for the classification of a source as reliable is not the user guidelines of Wikipedia – according to the Berlin Regional Court in the oral hearing – but the rules established by the courts" (my emphasis). In other words, a German court now assumes the power to write our RS policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of determining if libel has occurred, it is reasonable for the court to have the authority to evaluate the provenance of statements made. Some editors (particularly EU-based ones) have expressed concern about the personal liability to which they are exposed by editing or just participating in discussions on biographies of living persons. The WMF relies on the safe harbour of being a service provider without editorial control, so it does not have to check all content before publishing it (it can just react to complaints). Individual editors have no such protection. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That is certainly one of the reasons many people prefer to edit pseudonymously.

This is also of concern, and potentially newsworthy: I have noted that the German Wikipedia article is now edit-protected with even discussion of the court-ordered content removal having been deleted (I can not edit it -- gold locked, I think). It's not clear on what basis the admin deleted the content just before instituting edit protection. On enwp, edit protection should take place after reversion to the pre-editwarring revision which would be this, which includes the information about the case. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If the court ordered that the information be removed, though, then it would have to be deleted. Even on English Wikipedia, I think a libelous statement would be revision-deleted. (By North American standards, however, I believe veracity would play a role in determining libel, regardless of the specific sources cited by those adding the content.) isaacl (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at what was deleted?

Im November 2018 wurde bekannt das Waibel in einem Urteil am Landgericht Berlin erreicht hat das er seinem Wikipedia Artikel er nicht in Verbindung mit dem Überwachungsprogrammen der US-Geheimdienste gebracht werden darf. Dies stand Aufgrund eines Berichtes des MDR über seine Person im Artikel.

Translation: In November 2018, Waibel obtained a judgement from the Landgericht Berlin [court] that he must not be associated with the US surveillance program in his Wikipedia article. This was due to a report by Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk [radio] appearing in his article.

There is no way IMO that this would have been deleted by our BLP standards. Stating that the court case happened is true and therefore impossible to be libelous. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I alluded to, by North American standards, true facts cannot be libelous, but I'm not familiar with German law on this point (perhaps there is a broader reputation aspect?). I did not delve into what the German court ruled, so I don't know if it ordered that any mention of the case be removed. I assume that the German Wikipedia administrators were diligent in their application of relevant rulings and laws, but certainly more details would be enlightening. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor in Chief position is still open

Hey team, I just wanted to point out that the Editor in Chief position is still vacant. Anyone who has been steadily contributing here is more than qualified to throw their hat in the ring and/or just take it on. My time is still pretty limited, especially during the work week, so I'm happy to continue as assistant to the E in C, or even assistant to the assistant. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My time is also limited, but so far this month I appear to have been doing most of the work up to now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Passings

User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris died this week. Not sure whether it is appropriate to report at The Signpost. He was an active Wikipedian right up until his death. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a bulletpoint in News and Notes? Like pretty much all of the editorial team I've been here less than a year so I don't know how we normally do stuff but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't go in. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We usually include passings of well known established users. in News Notes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for 2nd essay for this month

@Barbara (WVS): @Bri: @Kudpung: This email is part of a semi-regular series that people, primarily me and sometimes including others, have been sharing on Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l. November 11th this year was the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, and I felt that it was a special case. I would like to publish my email for that occasion as an essay in The Signpost for this month, if that is permissible. I am okay with Barbara also having an essay in this month's issue, such that there would be two essays for this month. --Pine^✉ 07:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Go for it Pine, but call the column something other than 'Essay'. Call it 'Reflections' (or something like that). It's important because not only do no Wikipedians or readers remember WWI, most of them under 70 haven't a clue as to what WWII was all about either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added it to th publication table. Just click the 'Start article' button to create the page template (I'm sure you're more familiar with this than I am). Absolute deadline 25 Noc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Like thanks for your contribution, Pine. Does anybody know if there was a WWI-related editing drive, anywhere? We could mention that in an intro. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I don't know if there was anything on 11th November, but it would be worth mentioning meta:Europeana/1914-18 as it reviews some of the WWI-related events, activities, and contributions that have been organised over the past few years. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Bri: thanks for the permission. The piece is ready for a copyedit. --Pine^✉ 00:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pine: Do you want a separate username link at the bottom of the essay as it is currently formatted? It seems a bit redundant to the byline at the top. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: including the bottom signature is more consistent with the original email, and I chose that closing carefully. Please leave the closing as it is.--Pine^✉ 03:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Can do. As currently formatted: your username will appear at the foot of the article, linked to the meta userpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Issue 12 status

Hope people can find some time to help with the following:

• Several sections are not started, including Tech report – Evad37 has been missing for a while; tech report is usually his baby.
• Recent research is technically started, with just one short writeup by me.
• Discussion report is technically started but is really just a single sentence.

There are just under 48 hours left for writing; publication scheduled for December 2! ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been celebrating Thanksgiving the last few days and don't have access to my computer, but I should be finishing the DR by today or tomorrow. (Note: This is why I recommend the deadlines be Monday at 00:00 UTC.) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Done. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Cover page proof

Here is a very early proof of the cover page. Notice a lot of sections are missing titles (hint, hint)? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

New sections, and a new proof generated. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, for the new Gallery section, a new proof. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Publication checklist

I've started Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Publication checklist, and anyone is invited to contribute. This is per our discussion last month about how to reduce publication errors such as missed notification to contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed or opinion

We have a submission waiting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions and zero content currently slotted at Op-ed or Opinion. I'm inclined to take it. Do I hear a second? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but let’s just ping DiplomatTesterMan so they can confirm the page is finished. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeing how he already made changes based on my feedback, I'll move it over to Signpost space and run a new proof page. We still have a week to smooth out any rough edges. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

ITM

I know we don't cover routine vandalism but is this newsworthy? Many major media have reported on it. [1][2][3] ☆ Bri (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, I think it's newsworthy. Personally, I would add it. It does show that despite our very open policy towards editing, we are fairly quick to revert vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung Added at ITM per your suggestion. That feature has your name on it, so you may want to review. Bri.public (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it seems that there is some evidence (presumably withheld by the admins) that one insider has been doing the vandalism using compromised un-privileged and one or more compromised admin accounts. This is from the Metro 28 Nov followup story, quoting ENWP Admin MelanieN (original note here). My own research shows that admin Killiondude was compromised. We might want to expand this into a top-level item vice the "in brief" where it now stands. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, I don't have any time today or over the weekend to look at anything on Wikipedia. If you think it's fine, go ahead and publish, but the column is still missing a ttle. That said, traditionally in publishing, magazines and papers go out during the current month - or a December issue gets published at the end of November. For example. I have just published our corporate bulletin for December, for my company, and our 2019 catalog goes out next week. So we cannot really publish a November issue in December, or a December issue in January, if you can get everything ready of what we have for Chris troutman to press the buttons tonight before the American time zones move to 1 December, that would be good. I would also suggest trying to get a December issue ready as a Christmas/New year issue out in time for the holidays, so that I can also report on the findings of the Wish List and one or two other things such as excepts from the new WMF 'News' site. A thin issue is better than a late one or none at all. BTW, bad news about the lack of new admins - it's following the trend: it halves every year... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's always just been "issue 12" in my mind, not necessarily the November issue. Is there a pressing need for one in November? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

According to AN, "porn on the main page" due to compromised accounts has been a problem lately. Aybe due to the same actor. The admin compromise is probably the big story here. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

BriJust dropping by because I am in my office for 10 minutes. I think The Signpost should retain the concept of a monthly; issue. I don't personally take any notice of the issue number and it's my guess nobody else does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

News and notes – passings

Per discussion above, I attempted a decent acknowledgement of SBHB's passing at News and notes. I've never written an obituary before so Newsroom folks are welcome to improve/rewrite as necessary. Seemed to deserve more than just a bullet, with the quantity of high-quality reflections of those who miss him. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, I think you did that very nicely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject report

@ProgrammingGeek: we are already past the writing deadline and have limited people available to do copyedit (several written sections are still waiting for it). Would your feelings be hurt if we held this item for the next issue, probably later in December or early January? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, no not at all :). If this were the case I'd probably disregard this article as there's only one respondent and feature a more active wikiproject. It's probably for the best, anyway -- featuring a semi-active project doesn't exactly reflect well on a Return of the WikiProject Report. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 04:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration report

A new Arbcom case was requested so I added to the report. I'm requesting two things: a) review of my addition and b) advice on whether we should name the editor who is supposedly in violation, Jytdog. I'm refraining from doing this as many of the commenters at the case (incl respected senior editors Doc James, Softlavender, and Smartse) are already saying it was a good-faith attempt to help, and Arbcom should not take the case.

N.b. I did not repeat Jytdog's history with Arbcom including the June 2016 oversight block. I am a little bit involved due to our being colleagues at WP:COIN, which is why I'm seeking counsel on how to treat this whole thing. I'd be fine if someone else wants to take over that blurb for arb report. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyedited the existing text. Looks fine to me but I'm not the most discerning eye on this stuff so probably best to get another opinion. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we ready?

I'm about ready to ask Chris troutman to publish. Does anybody want time for last-minute changes? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay Chris, please publish. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

FC

Do you need someone to handle featured content? Probably would want to do a big catchup to start, so shall we say next issue? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Good to have you here. I would welcome your contribution, and yes of course it is not the right time to try to insert anything in issue 12; we are probably going to press today. Are you familiar with the conventions used in previous issues? There is an article template generated when you hit the "Start article" button in the newsroom. If you don't mind, you can experiment with that but please don't save quite yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I ran it for about a year some time ago; wi 'll probably need to adapt it a bit for the catchup, but should be done after. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Just ping me too if any help is needed. It's been some time I've used them tools too. (Hi Adam..:-)) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Issue 13

Area for next issue - issue 1 if published in 2019, or 13 if 2018. I recommend starting with a show of hands for folks who feel they can contribute during December, so we can set an issue date. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll be doing the WikiProject Report with WP:WPAFC for December. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I intend to be available during the whole period, so publishing before year's end (or prior to Christmas) is fine with me. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor-in-Chief position is vacant

Just a reminder that I'm serving as interim E-in-C. How this works is, nomination by acclaim or self-appointment. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Bri, if you want the job I don't think anyone would seriously object. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this post is that Bri doesn't want to be permanent EiC (though if he did I would support it as he's done a good job). Please correct me if I'm wrong. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

pythoncoder, I'll continue to share some of the responsibility for editing decisions with Bri as joint acting E-in-Cs. I occasionally have time to check over things as I did last month, but my time is severly limited, but while I have stopped following my watchlist, I do check in to the newsroom regularly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And I've been taking on more responsibility as well (e.g. Arbitration Report), though again, my time is limited (though I’ll have more time around Christmas so that’ll be good). I don’t need any title though as that will encourage me to suck more of my time into this vortex. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A triumvirate! ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

News and notes

Compromised admin accounts

Looking back at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-14/Compromised accounts, I wonder if we should run another one. There were four admin accounts compromised in late November, according to the Administrators Newsletter. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A brief log of four identified compromised admin accounts is at User:Bri/Compromised (Esanchez7587, Garzo, Killiondude, Orangemike (in chronological order)). @Kudpung: do you want to include this in News and notes? You have just one of them listed currently. Bri.public (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Bri, done and updated. I wasn't aware of thr others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know they hadn't been collated before, but the Administrators' newsletter had the count of "at least" four. I looked a bit and didn't find more. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Bri, I've put that 2007 article in 'From the archives'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There was also at least one compromised rollbacker, Asenine ☆ Bri (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI rollover

Rollover past 99999

ANI archive will probably roll over past 999 this month. Maybe too trivial to report? Maybe not. Bri.public (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Publication date

I know that Kudpung has requested an earlier publication date so the issue can go out before Christmas Day. It doesn't look like we're on track for content right now, but if the team wants to make a push for it, we could try. In particular, I think we'd need a News and notes section – this is The Signpost's meat and potatoes – it's started but incomplete. Anybody in for a push to early publication? Bri.public (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: the Top50 team stated they are working to a 23 December deadline for the end-of-year report. It would be nice if we were aligned for our Traffic report. Bri.public (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This would be tricky for "Recent research", Masssly and I still need to send out our usual invitation to reviewers (only one contribution promised so far).

By the way, I seem to recall from a recent discussion elsewhere that there is a preference for posting the top 50 data for 2018 only after the year has actually concluded (like last year)? The linked discussion seems to refer to the drafting of article summaries instead. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• The news and notes section is done unless there is likely to be anything new. I'd be surprised if any new significant submissions for other empty columns are going to be forthcoming in the next few days. We could almost get the next issue out before Xmas. We need to insist that while we can format and proofread submissions, there is no capacity for improving or completing them, particularly the technical news which is always late or submitted at the last minute. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that last-minute content dumps make the editorial job stressful. Let's not allow that. If we're going to compress the issue 13 schedule, we need to do it now. Pythoncoder, do you have a thought on this? Would you be able to help if we try to finish up, say, this weekend? P.S. I could wrap up the Arbitration report pretty quickly, if need be. Bri.public (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I can finish before Friday and do some editing after. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we are agreed, then. Friday deadline for writing and Sunday eve (Pacific Time) for publishing? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Special report

The special report is written and as the contributor noted, we should add an editorial comment to the effect that it is anticipated to be a two-part issue incorporating reader and editorial board feedback in part 2. I'm also inviting the rest of the editors here to have a try at a snazzier title; it's coming across to me as a little bookish. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried changing the title from "How many pageviews does The Signpost get?" to "The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?". Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Proof page

See User:Bri/Signpost2018Issue13 for proof page of table of contents. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

New proof page, same link. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

CSDs

Not sure if this would be better for N&N or the Discussion report, but the multiple new/changed CSD criteria this month would be worth including. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll put it in the DR. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In the Media

I think the blurb defined is a bit confusing. I read it as “Wikipedia vandals who placed obscene images on the pages of Trump and an MP are banned”, not what it should be saying. Could we change the ‘and’ between ‘US President’ and ‘British MP’ to ‘, as well as’? programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 19:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on ambiguity; I hope I addressed it with the new blurb. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed

I see that we don't have an op-ed for this issue but I found this little gem: Writing articles on Wikipedia is our way of leaving legacy to the next generations. Would it be appropriate for the empty slot? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, Pythoncoder, Kudpung and I have an offline op-ed tip... ☆ Bri (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung and I discussed and like the op-ed. Pythoncoder recused. So we are going ahead for issue 13. This is going to be a noticeable piece of investigative journalism by Smallbones, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Was doing some minor copyediting on the op-ed. I see multiple quotes from your email sources. Do they need to be cited? Should the transcripts be posted somewhere? I've tagged them with {{cite quote}} for now. Anyways, stellar reporting there. Well done. Cheers, programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 03:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The FIOA file is listed in the refs, but is completely unstructured. You can find it in the file by searching for "wiki". The other way to do it might be to take a screen shot from the file which is here.

from the FOIA file

@ProgrammingGeek:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, excellent, thank you programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 03:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Another from the DOJ website (but I just noticed the highlighting mistake)

From the Department of Justice, Southern District of Iowa website November 6, 2009

. I'll get a version without the highlighting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I am OK with this being published. Normally newspapers do notcite their sources. I don't see why Tha Signpost' should be an exception. Our columns are not Wikipedia articles. Hopwever, one can oalways do as I often do and provide inline links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand that references are not usually included in Signpost articles, but many of these refs are essential to the story. There are 2 big "databases" involved that you have to know how to search: the FOIA release and the CoSIDA Academic All-American lists. Without the 1st one at least, I'd think that few people would believe that the now Acting Attorney General sent a severely padded resume to a scammer while applying for a job. With the ref they can see for themselves. BTW the FOIA release is huge - it took me a week working with it before I found the resume. You pretty much have to know exactly what to search for to use it.

I have no problem leaving out the refs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 16, 17, and 19.The rest I'd rather keep. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Close now

@Megalibrarygirl, Barbara (WVS), Bluerasberry, and ProgrammingGeek: any help doing final copyedit on the issue is appreciated. The roster of unfinished articles is on the project page attached to this talkpage, as usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we're ready to publish as soon as the op-ed is copyedited. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. This is my first time copy editing but it looks good to me. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bri, maybe some words of seasonal greeting should be added to the 'From trhew editors'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Kudpung, I’ve added holiday wishes to the end for the editors’ review. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Kudpung On mobile, won't be home to look at things closely for a few hours. If you say go, I agree. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've been through everything one last time and made some minor tweaks and updates. Everything looks good to go. We just need Bri's consensus for Chris troutman to switch the machine on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have an emai from Bri who is offline. He has asked me to go ahead with publication, Chris troutman could you please set the wheels in motion asap. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bri, Kudpung, Chris troutman, Megalibrarygirl, Barbara (WVS), Bluerasberry, and ProgrammingGeek: Does anybody know the reason for the hold up or what to do about it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman has received a message on his tp and half a dozens pings. One can only assume he's not around. If Bri is around now, he may have to do it himself.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

From their respective user pages, it seems they’re in the US pacific time zone — should just be a few hours, nothing too concerning. :) Happy Christmas programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 10:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bri and Kudpung: It's published, and I'm in the process of sending out the notifications now. Real life does, on occasion, delay me by a few hours. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reset for December

Continued in Issue 13 discussion

I am thinking to reset time of next issues14.232.160.139 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) How does 29 December publication sound to everyone? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC) That sounds good because it means we won't be publishing on Christmas or New Year’s. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Personally, I would aim for an even earler publicatiion, like Christmas Eve, in order to convey both Xmas and New Year wishes. It would leave plenty of time then to create a beefy issue for end January. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) I like the idea of publishing on Christmas Eve. I did a little of copy-editing. I am sorry that I couldn't be more active in getting this issue together. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Mistake?

The "FROM THE EDITORS Where to draw the line in reporting?" has the lines - "and a reprint of a key Signpost interview with Sue Gardner, a former executive director of the WMF." But there is no interview as such in this issue as far as I could find? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Good call, that header was left unchanged from an earlier issue it was originally written for. I just deleted the irrelevant parts. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan/ Signpost Article: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages!

I think we can go with this. I would suggest naming the column 'In focus' rather than Op-ed, or opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed my submission type to 'In Focus' at the submissions desk as per this suggestion. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Interference and edit warring on pre-publication drafts of The Signpost articles

I do not believe that edit warring is the way our articles should be improved prior to publication. IMO suggestions for improvement, additions, or inaccuracies should be addressed here in the newsroom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus one ☆ Bri (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What about correcting obvious factual errors on a BOLD basis, as the note at the top of each article page says may be done? Is that allowed? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

James' replacement

Note that Jan isn't the replacement for James. James was the Operations Manager of T&S, while Jan has been the Lead Manager since much earlier in this year and well before James left. James' position has not yet been filled, and other operations staff have been acting for him in the interim. See old diffs of m:Template:Community Engagement like this for example. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: indeed I am aware that the signpost is not a Wikipedia article; I noticed the namespace before I pressed the edit button. I also noticed, at the top of the page, a notice that says "If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!". I assumed that correcting a factual error would be the sort of contribution that would be allowed. My edit has now been reverted twice, including once by you after I had already posted this explanation. As I said, Jan has been the Lead Manager since early 2018. James leaving is not relevant to that fact, nor does it change that fact. James was not in the senior position at T&S prior to his departure. Now, I am just trying to remove objectively wrong information from your article. If you somehow own this area of the project and want to keep it in, be my guest. But I think that reflects very poorly on you, and I am yet again confused by the actions you have chosen to take. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, as I have been insulted in the recent past by members of the stewardship community, my personal reaction was that this was another case of a steward throwing his or her weight about, and I apologise for that. Nevertheless, as a courtesy, bold changes to as yet unpublished Signpost articles could be discussed with whatever it is that we have left of an editorial board. What you are however not aware of is that I had already contacted a very senior WMF staff for a comment on Alexander's demission and I am still waiting for a reply in order to update the facts in the article. II you prefer, we, the Signpost's regular contributors can always write our copy offline and publish on the deadline. I certainly do not pretend to own The Signpost or any part of it, but as the other major contributor to keeping it afloat, I do my best, and if people don't like my work, I would be quite happy to quit at the drop of a hat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rest assured that I was trying to correct an error, not throw my weight around. I've seen "Jan replaces James" in a number of places both on and off wiki, including one area with a link to the signpost article in progress, and wanted to at least ensure that the information being presented here was accurate. I'm not placing any blame on you or anyone else for not knowing - I don't imagine that many people followed the inner workings of the Trust and Safety team prior to James' departure. The only reason I know is because of regular interactions with that team in my capacity as a steward. As I don't have any experience with the signpost, and the notice at the top seemed to support BOLD fixes, I didn't realize it would be a problem. I'd be happy to suggest edits in the future rather than making changes, especially in cases like that where some explanation would be beneficial.

I see you've now moved that part off-line. I am confused by this. Why would you want people to be unable to help with writing and fact-checking articles? To recap, I made an edit on the page to fix a factual error. You don't question the factual accuracy of my edit. But you have nevertheless reacted by: reverting my edit, posting a section here saying that people shouldn't "interfere" with stories in progress, moving the article to a private area where nobody else can see it or check its accuracy, and then threatening to quit if people don't like your work. Nobody is attacking you, nobody is attacking your work. Anyway, since I've got across the info that I wanted to, my work here is done. Good luck with the final version. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, I think you've answered your own questions. You discredit the Signpost's editors, and me personally, by suggesting that a nascent article 3 weeks before publication deadline is going to be the final offering. As regards James Alexander, the Signpost has already received the requested information from the WMF and the article was immediately updated and its draft reposted. The suggestions that possible contentious reportages be prepared offline and published at the last minute are not new and some often are. As the magazine is neither a Wikipedia article nor a discussion about an article nor user behavior it's even been discussed whether or not we should take The Signpost off the Wikimedia servers entirely and use other DP software for its production. As for attacks, I find your accusation that I claim to own The Signpost or part of it, to be inappropriate for someone of your station, but I am just a mere admin around here and sysops are not allowed to defend ourselves without incurring even more reprisals. All this does not encourage people like me and Bri to even keep The Signpost going. Last month's issue actually asked the community if they want it continued, and if so, in what form; I don't recall seeing your user name among the comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As I've said many times here, I have had nothing to do with the signpost in the past. I am hardly discrediting the Signpost's editors by pointing out and fixing a mistake - this is a wiki, it happens literally all the time. You're the one who is choosing to overreact here. If you stop taking everything that happens as a personal attack against you, these situations wouldn't even exist. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI has archive 1000

We can have signpost in here. 14.232.160.139 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that really something to celebrate? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth noting as a technical note. Here there is a discussion abt possible bugs in one-click archiver and other oddities of hitting 4 digits for the first time in any page archive. Why this is a matter of speculation... well. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Technology report

Hi. I was wondering if a newsletter I started about user scripts and related stuff here on enwiki could be mentioned? Ping @Evad37: who just started the technology report for the next release. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 05:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks. I'll make sure to clean up the page its linked to before it gets sent. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: About this edit. You may also want to include this --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Deadline imminent

Although this month's issue was given a long time for preparation due to the early release of the December issue, as usual, it appears that many contributions have been left to the last minute. Some people still don't get to understand that Bri and I can only do a strict bare minimum of cleanup work as well as trying hard to boost the content with our own contributions, and we do not have time to review, complete, or copy edit everything else.

I'm further curious about the lack of response to the 'From the Editors' in the previous issue, and the very low number of reader comments in general. May be this is a blessing in disguise and the detractors have finally realised that their comments are not wanted. It may have been due to the holiday period. If someone can run some stats over the page views, it would help.

I'm now travelling for the rest of the month and have no time to do m anything else much here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have had real life obligations for much of this month but i will do what i can. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Featured content

The last four issues dod not have a Featured Content section. Was it decided at some time to permanently drop it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I stopped creating that section and no-one else started it back up. I'd be happy to see it revived but I don't have capacity to do it myself. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There was someone planning to do it at some point but it's been a while since i heard anything about it — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The format for the Featured Content report makes a bit of a pain to put together, especially making the summaries for the articles and lists, and looking up the nomination links and nominators. And with the monthly schedule, it was probably getting past the TLDR point for most readers. I'll have a go at putting together a brief version, just using galleries and linking to articles. - Evad37 [talk] 00:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Selecting illustrations was the best part, for me, honestly. Good luck with it! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, apart from a title and blurb - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report

There is no proposed decision (PD) yet and we're near our writing deadline. Is someone else willing to finish this off in case the PD appears but I can't come back to writing? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

To everyone who shoulders the burden at the newsroom: You are appreciated. If I have been lax and forgotten to send anyone a barnstar, please ping me so I can remedy the situation as soon as possible. Regards, ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: I know my effort at pressing the button for code someone else wrote is appreciated, but I'll accept a free barnstar for this and the other articles I wrote for The Signpost. I'm waiting for this month's go-ahead to publish. Today would be an easier day for me to press the button. If it's tomorrow, I might not be able until late night Eastern US time. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit done of News & Notes

I've been WP:BOLD and done this. Hope it's satisfactory. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Buckshot06. N&N has been expanded since, you may wish to take another look, and please feel free to be bold and CE any other Signpost columns (except snippets reported 'sic', and anything provided by or copied and pasted from WMF sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

D'Costa photo - News and Notes

Bri, I'm not sure about the licensing for the photo I used. The WMF do not allow the photos on their site to be downloaded and they don't like to publish their work on Commons. I scanned and uploaded it to Commons but had to invent a usage rationale. Please check it out before publishing The Signpost in case Commons deletes it. The photo's creator is not known. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we will be OK, the WMF blog where you got the image has this text: "Except where otherwise noted, the content of this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license". I added a comment to your upload. Bri.public (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung and Bri, a couple points. One, that particular photo is unfortunately not CC licensed. The photo credits are at the bottom of the blog post, where you'll see that it's "Courtesy of Cassidy DuHon/Valerie D’Costa." A freely licensed staff photo will be going up in the next few weeks. Two, you can download images from the site... you can right click and then hit "save image as"? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ed Erhart (WMF), the WMF has a blog again? That's something new to me. AFAIK the blog was discontinued with the launch of the new WMF web sitewhere it states: "Except where otherwise noted, the content of this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license.". That page also links to Use at Terms of Use wherein it is stated:

You are free to:

Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content). Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.

No Harm – You do not harm our technology infrastructure.

So I belive it is fair to assume that if the WMF can publish the image on their site, it can be published at Commons and here - unless of course the WMF is not bound by the same copyright regulations as the encyclopedias. Naturally, I'll stand corrected, and if I am wrong, it puts the WMF's claims to transparency in a poor perspective. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of poor practice IMO to state that content is CC unless noted, then make the reader assume that courtesy of [contributor] and lack of any notation to the contrary implies that it is not CC shared. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Publication

Make it so...

Chris troutman please be ready with fingers on the button. Bri please give final go ahead when you are ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman make it so! Here's to everybody who helped create the first issue of 2019. Let's hope it's a good year for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Chris hasn't edited in 7 hours. Should I send it?--DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: You would need to be a page-mover here and a global mass-message sender on Meta to be able to publish it properly. (And approved in my publishing script.) I am available as a backup publisher if need be, but give Chris a chance – its only been one and a half hours since Bri gave his go-ahead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Oh, thanks. If its helpful, I could look into getting mass-message on meta and page-mover here... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Probably better to get consensus at WT:POST and/or statements from the EICs that they're happy for you to publish. Otherwise you might have a hard time getting the permissions, especially global mass-message - Evad37 [talk] 04:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Yeah, I meant that in the future it might be useful, given that Chris still hasn't sent it. Not at all for any time soon. Sorry for the confusion --DannyS712 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it now. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

not ready?

@Bri and DiplomatTesterMan: All items should be marked as "go" both on the newsroom and on the individual pieces. I am not a quality control check. Please do your job so I can do mine. It's insulting enough that you some editors think I'm johnny-on-the-spot waiting by Wikipedia when it should be clear I don't really edit anymore. It's far worse that your end is not yet done properly. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Apologies for my thoughts, as seen above. Just trying to help --DannyS712 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please double check

Chris troutman, I think there is an error in connectivity between Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and the single-page edition link. An intermediary page is being displayed - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2019-01-31. All that needs to be done is fix the redirect right? Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2019-01-31 is supposed to transclude the various signpost articles onto a single page using {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single|issuedate}}, but we broke it by having too much content and causing a WP:TLIMIT error. I fixed it by bypassing that top-level transclusion. - Evad37 [talk] 08:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

January sent

January issue is out; watchlist notice requested, and advertised on Twitter. Newsroom has been reset. Let's please be sure in the future that all sections are marked ready before my name is invoked. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I still have access to the Signpost Facebook page, so I've posted a message there. - Evad37 [talk] 14:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

@Bri:: This is a request, please could someone add one line in the current gallery - "A tour of some of the world's greatest memorials courtesy the Prime Minister of India" or something more suitable as a small intro... this is clarity for the readers who do not see the blurb. If this is required. Regards. And maybe credit Johnbod for this insight too. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, The Signpost's policy is not to make post-publication changes (other than very minor formatting issues or typos). As with all other news publications and magazines, any major issues or fact corrections are reported in the next issue. In any case, the newspaper is usually read by the majority of readers within hours of publication. The editorial staff regulars are already preparing a piece for the next issue which will directly address these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, thank you for the comment and explanation. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete an article after its publication or extensively modify it?

I am asking this question - "Is it possible to delete an article after it's publication or extensively modify it?" on the basis of Johnbod's comment on the galley article I created. I created it with the best of intentions, keeping the best images at the top and saying clearly at the bottom if you think there are better images then please state so. But I will feel really disheartened to see that template remain in the comments section. So yes, "Is it possible to delete an article after it's publication or extensively modify it?" or should i just stay calm and let it be...? I am tagging @Evad37: here since you have I think the most experience with The Signpost, and I have already tagged Bri and Kudpung before. What do you suggest? Do i just face the dust and backlash like a journalist in the real world would? (hope this doesn't sound overly dramatic, but yeh, i really want to sort this out and convey my viewpoint) Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If any else wants to provide some guidance please do. I am lost as in how to react here. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

After asking for some directions in the Teahouse I found nearly an identical case to what I am talking about from 2016 - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated this for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Gallery. I don't know why a redlink appears on the deletion template in the article... but the link still works.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I see now the Mfd has been withdrawn, but to answer the original question: Signpost pages are subject to the same policies/processes as other pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, and so can be deleted via MfD, or via speedy deletion if any of the criterion apply. Similarly, it is also possible to edit the page like any other wiki page – but by convention major changes are not usually made after publication, and even when done they would usually be noted as a post-publication addendum or similar. - Evad37 [talk] 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have requested it to be withdrawn. Thank you for the explanation Evad37 and to everyone who were patient (especially Kudpung & Bri) with this or provided rationale on the Mfd. Won't happen again. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Readers' comments are often contentious, often blatant personal attacks at The Signpost editors, and often little more than trolling. It's a shame, because in general, comments from most of the serious Wikipedia editors are objective, but the time will come when the comments page will be deprecated and comments will have to be submitted by email to be selected by the editorial board as they would be for any other newspaper. The problem is that many people refuse to recognise The Signnpost as a newspaper and make the same demands as they would for a Wikipedia article which of course it is not. Other options are to cease production completely - which will happen if the tiny number of regular contributors dries up, or to move the magazine to its own server. In any case, far too many readers' comments are not conducive to encouraginng further contributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  In relation to the specific case, I do not think JohnBod's commentary to be any productive (and might have stemmed from a complete misinterpretation of Signpost-stuff).

  But, another part of the problem is that many editors refuse to recognize the Signpost as your personal fiefdom (or as an extension of your user-space) where you can do a whole lot of stuff without being called out. You have been already involved in one of the nastiest controversies, (months back), as to dealing with Signpost comments, that blew out of proportions and yet your comment to one of our most respected stewards over this edit is downright chilling. As the saying goes, courtesy is a two-way street. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, what? You're taking umbrage at "please use the proper channels" wrt editing a published Signpost piece? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  Bri, what? He was not editing a published Signpost piece and that piece was under active-writing back then.

  If he was editing the stuff post-publication, K's response would have been proper enough.

  And, to me, his reply is another way of saying Your contributions are not much welcome; if you manage to go through the hoops of finding the proper channel and then using them, come back to pester me.....Ta, for now.

  FWIW, I will bet that a steward (who actively liasons with the WMF) ought to have a far greater idea about their hiearchies, staff and all that. ∯WBG^converse 06:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• You are right, that was pre publication. My error. However the point is we (editorial staff) reverted the changes and at that point it should have been a discussion not a reintroduction of the same changes, which appeared heavy handed. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It also appeared heavy handed for the two editors to seemingly not care about the content or quality of the article, and be more concerned with keeping their version intact. I immediately started a discussion on the talk page with the evidence when I re-added the content; there was no attempt by either of you to engage in discussion until after I repeated that post here.

I've been following Kudpung's comments here and elsewhere, and it seems that the siege mentality is continuing. Not everyone who makes a small factual change, or who leaves a negative comment on a Signpost article is harassing you or making personal attacks or trying to discredit you. Rather than assuming that everyone who leaves negative feedback is a troll, you should try listening to what they are saying. Maybe they have a point. Doubling down on mistakes, while being very popular on Wikipedia, doesn't get you far in the long run. Negative feedback can be an opportunity to learn and improve how things operate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, (FYI: Bri), there has never been any suggestion at all, anywhere, that we are "...assuming that everyone who leaves negative feedback is a troll,", perhaps you should more closely read what is being said, and avoid taking people's comments out of context to fulfil your own agenda concerning the magazine and its contributors. This is not the first time you have attacked The Signpost and/or its editors and content; especially comments like yours will certainly result in the ultimate total loss of interest and demission of those who are struggling to keep the magazine afloat (at least on WikiMedia servers). Our ultimate report to be published in the next issue, and as you will also have noted from your stalking of users' edits, is very definitely being prepared offline - and which is indeed our prerogative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I make a small content fix on one article, and now that's evolved into you saying that I am attacking and stalking people, and having an agenda related to the magazine. My only intention was ever to fix a factual error that was being propagated in multiple locations. This has been one of the most bizarre wiki interactions I've ever had. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been following Kudpung's comments here and elsewhere: Then drop it, stop it, Ajraddatz, and refrain from criticising and taking others' comments out of context. This is the most bizarre behaviour I have ever witnessed from a steward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. With regards to your accusation of hounding/harassment, I have not been following you to multiple venues. I commented here after I was pinged and my previous conduct was under discussion. I looked at your contributions after seeing comments by you here and in response to one of the Signpost articles that I had on my watchlist. I didn't intend to use that information to harass you, but rather to support the point of my argument - that criticism presents an opportunity to learn and improve how things are done. With regards to taking others' comments out of context, I do not believe that I have done so. Your comments here, on this talk page that I have on my watchlist, and on your talk page suggest that you are viewing comments that I would consider as good-faith attempts to raise concerns with Signpost content as harassment or personal attacks. My comment of "...assuming that everyone who leaves negative feedback is a troll" was indeed a generalization of what I perceived your response to be - I have struck that from my original comment and made my intent more clear. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric: courtesy is a two-way street - perhaps you could use some. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, in light of yours' feel everybody to be treating you in a discourteous manner; you might read this nice story by GMacon:-

'There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"

Many users, over your resysop thread commented over your increasingly wayward behaviors and hoped for better. I note 2 stewards, a sitting arbitrator, 2 bureaucrats, 2 sysops (one of whom is an ex-steward) and an ex-sysop at a quick glance.

FWIW, you can wish to convert Signpost into your own fiefdom, where no body can edit stuff without prior permission. You can wish to make that a place, where grant of that prior permission does not depend upon the quality of the content/improvements brought by them; but rather on your personal relations with the contributor. (Vide .....as I have been insulted in the recent past by members of the stewardship community, my personal reaction was that this was another case of a steward throwing his or her weight about ......) You can feel that that the hordes of comments (which are near unanimously critical of your write-up) to be blatant personal attacks at the editors and little more than trolling. You can feel discredited, when people (who are more competent than you, atleast in the very specific locus of discussion) chime in with constructive contributions in good-faith and behave in a hostile manner.

But as Ajra has noted:- This is a wiki, it happens literally all the time and to fulfill your wishes, you need to fork your own version of The Signpost and shift it out of Wikipedia. Create your own website; publish whatever the heck you feel like; I don't give a damn. But as long as you operate within the confines of Wikipedia, I will not let you run per your own whims without taking any advice from others on board and launching blatant PAs at whoever chooses to cross your path. And, (as you might have witnessed), I can assure that I have the support of multiple co-editors when I state so.

Your inability to accept any form of criticism is not new (except that it has worsened over the recent past) and viewing the readers' comments as trolling (however misguided they may be) seems to be an indicative symptom as is yours' asking Ajraddatz to refrain from criticizing. Days back you were threatening to remove my flags, because I choose to un-review one of your poor creations; this's giving way to a pattern and which has been going for months.

I will urge you to self-reflect and retrospect on your attitude towards other users. And, on a very important note, you are not such a high-value-threat that anybody and everybody (including the stewards) are out to get you.

Oh, and as to your interpretation of courtesy and NPA, you might wish to read these sage comments for a different perspective. ∯WBG^converse 14:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, noting this VPP post, concerned about the recent trends of Signpost and all that.∯WBG^converse 16:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The siege mentality is out of control and has been for some time -- what on earth is this? I think that most of the people involved in the Signpost are grown up enough to realize that not every criticism is a personal attack or a vendetta. And that a community newsletter will sometimes receive criticism or even just questions, ill-informed or otherwise. Lashing out in every direction is indicative of immaturity and a need for some serious self-reflection. MPS1992 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The negative effects of removing the comments section outweigh the positives. In particular, the comments section allows errors to be corrected and ensures The Signpost adheres to journalistic standards. IMO personal attacks are not as common as Kudpung suggests. I don’t think it should be removed at the moment. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Interface Administrators

@DannyS712: User permissions are usually covered in News and Notes – they're not really "tech" news/changes as such. Also, I don't think the hat collectors joke will go over well – especially since until you reach the second paragraphs, it genuinely seems like you are complaining about Galobtter and Enterprisey being hat collectors. Perhaps some "hat collectors"-type joke could be part of the Humour section instead? (ping Barbara (WVS)). Or at the very least, the "Jokes aside,..." line should be the second sentence, before you start mentioning user names. - Evad37 [talk] 00:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Take a look now --DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better now. - Evad37 [talk] 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Though maybe it should be combined with the gadgets story, rather than having the ... and another heading - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm back!

I'm not sure if anyone missed me but my work unblocked Wikipedia again! Not sure how long it'll last but I'm taking full advantage while I have it back. Does the traffic report still need someone? ♥Acorimori♦ 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Acorimori. We can always use extra hands around here, so feel free to contribute to the traffic report (which no-one's started yet), or other sections if you feel like it . (Assuming you still have access.) - Evad37 [talk] 02:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I was starting to get discouraged looking at all the infighting in here so to be perfectly honest I was avoiding it in favor of other tasks, but I do love setting up the traffic report <3 ♦AcoriSage 02:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Good luck on your RfA by the way Evad37! ♦AcoriSage 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should start a new topic for this so I'm just putting it under here, but where should I start this month's Traffic Report, considering the Top 50 took precedence over the weekly reports? Should I go all the way back to December 15, or start at the beginning of January, or mid-January, or the beginning of February? ♦AcoriSage 18:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm probably going to go back to mid-January, based on previous Traffic Reports. ♦AcoriSage 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Calling out for copyeditors

We have several sections pending copyedit. Please help! This will go out mid-week so the weekend is probably our best chance for a good go-over on the currently completed sections: Arbitration report, Traffic report, Gallery, Essay and Humour. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just did AR and Gallery. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If we can get two sections copyedited, that's a wrap for the issue: News and notes, and In focus. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

February writing deadline

@Bluerasberry, Pythoncoder, Evad37, DannyS712, and Tbayer (WMF): Editors of unfinished features (In the media, Discussion report, Featured content, Technology report, and Recent research respectively): please wrap writing by midnight tonight Pacific Time or reply here on when you will be able to complete. Trying to keep issue on track! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIAA, I'm done with my part(s) of the technology report --DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Also, Evad, glad to see your username has yet another new background color! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Featured content just needs a copyedit now. I'll try to have my part of the Tech report done by your deadline, which I think converts to 08:00 UTC (if not I'll reply here again with an update). - Evad37 [talk] 02:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If everyone could show me they've completed their work, I'll be ready to publish. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been careful to mark both the items-in-development and the Newsroom roster as completed in all cases. Based on reader response I treat "News and notes" as a must-have but other sections can be dropped if they aren't completed on time. Speaking of which, News and notes is kind of thin, more on this below. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I will do meta:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019 by tonight. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Will that be in News and notes? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I drafted it at User:Bluerasberry/Signpost Story1. @Bri: can you ping anyone who you think is likely to be able to contribute to copyediting this? @Pythoncoder, Evad37, DannyS712, and Chris troutman: I would appreciate any copyediting you have to offer for this timely and important announcement. I will try to recruit some fact checking from others involved in the election. Thanks for the deep editorial patience of accepting a last-minute long submission. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As soon as I get back to my regular account I will move this to In focus (similar to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-22/In focus) and add a small mention in News and notes. Bri.public (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I find this rather mean-spirited personally. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I found it hilarious. Also am impressed that a Bing search for the desperate loneliness of the "royal we" takes you to the draft-in-progress. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, 'mean spiritied?" I have recollections of your own work going back many years. Perhaps you would prefer The Signpost to cease publication altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I mean... I agree with the sentiment that it is mean-spirit. I don't think it is an unreasonable statement. In reference to the shut-down bit: We did receive a separate submission for that column. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 00:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I fail to see any connotation. I have a great respect for Barbara (WVS) and SMcCandlish and the work they do on Wikipedia. Such criticisms of The Signpost will lead to its fregular editors giving up completely and her magazine's ultimate demise - compare already the volume of this month's content already with that of ther previous 10 months... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, It's no knock against SMcCandlish nor Barbara. It's just a divisive topic. I mean, both SMcCandlish and I participated in a contentious RfC about this kind of topic at Talk:The Matrix (franchise). ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Good humour punches up, not down. This punches way down and comes across as a poor-taste diatribe against MOS:GENDERID and similar. Specifically at people who don't identify as male or female and trans folk, of which we have many in the community, and of which we don't need to alienate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I read it as being a sendup of people who don't want to follow MOS:HONORIFIC and the like. E.g. MOS:GENDERID isn't about allowing editors/subjects to insist on pronouns always being capitalised, or always written with emphasis, or not being combined into a group pronoun like "them", etc. - Evad37 [talk] 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Honorifics is about titles, not pronouns. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

News and notes

If anybody is interested in contributing to News and notes, either as a headline item, or as a brief note, go for it! It's kind of thin for this issue. There are some discussions I've been personally involved in that I think are newsworthy but I'm too modest to add them myself. You might want to see WP:VPP for ideas. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: I'll add a small note about the VP discussion about portals --DannyS712 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Help wanted (still)"

I'm copy editing this. Don't judge me. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Block/Unblocked

Again I am hot topic at ANI. You Signpost folk have been wonderful to work with. Of course I'm done with the Signpost. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), sorry to see you go. :( ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

⬆ Beat me to it. Thank you for your contributions! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You were a lot of fun to work with. The best experience I have had on WP. Not coming back, not me. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I encouraged you to contribute to The Signpost and I don't regret that decision. If you feel the need to step back because the torches-and-pitchforks collective showed up, then I hope you enjoy your break. However, I don't think you need to feel unwelcome here or duty-bound to fall on your sword. Everyone is liable to misstep from time to time; it doesn't require you to quit, especially when the braying mob is known to be over-sensitive and bloodthirsty sometimes. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris, there is no way and no reason for me to blame any of this on you. It was still a great idea rather coming up with more articles like Rats and plumbing defects. I did make it into the April 1 queue with mud pies. I have learned so much from you-really. You are really smart and have a special kind of wisdom. Come on, the Carrots article was my best-did you smile? I miss Pittsburgh...a little. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Horrid events - for which I place no blame on you. I recommend Gibbs' Rule No. 6, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): sorry to see the "torches-and-pitchforks collective" again. Sometimes it seems that it takes a strong stomach to contribute here. I'll recommend taking a month off then getting back to work, probably in a different column to start with. Thank you for your contributions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not doing it. I hope to get my topic ban removed so I can start back adding content. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Give yourselves a pat on the back

Another issue completed! Well done, Newsroom crew. @Chris troutman: please turn the crank – note that we aren't publishing the In the media section that was created this month. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ok. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Issue published, tweet sent, email to the Wikimedia list sent, and watchlist notice requested. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor Bri: WMF refused to let us advertise this issue via the mailing list. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the so-called “humor” piece, I don’t think we deserve a pat on the back this month. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

pythoncoder, both Headbomb and myself tried saying something. You can see the push back there. Of course, I wasn't in a position to say anything more. Both Co-Editors-in-Chief signed off on it. This was the first edition I had contributed to. I don't know what else there was to do. The rest of the Signpost at least turned out well if you ask me. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s always how it goes when there’s a scandal like this. People forget the good and only notice the bad. I hope that we can find a satisfactory resolution sooner rather than later, so we can all get back to work on the next issue. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, this will probably end with more than one people losing their head. Unless possibly both the current editors-in-chief resign, I would brace for this to be a protracted thing. People are going to want to see something change (just my prediction). (edit conflict) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue there is such strong pushback because the Signpost normally is quite good. If the Signpost was normally shit, nobody would be reading it, and nobody would care. This piece is absolutely out of character for the publication. If you want to do more, you can join myself and others in calling for a retraction and accountability from the two EiCs here.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, you can join me in drafting next months "From the editors" here. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Signpost editor, so I can't write a piece that's from the editors. I already have an article in the works at User:Headbomb/Crapwatch, but whether or not I submit it for consideration (or keep reading the Signpost at all for what matters), will depend greatly on whether or not this hurtful piece of garbage is retracted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Signpost (I was most active back in 2009, but have contributed articles sporadically since then), I would like to express my disappointment with the current editorial leadership (or lack thereof). It would be better, IMO, for the Signpost to gracefully be retired than for it to become a soapbox for trolling, bad jokes, and conspiracy theories. At the risk of sounding like an old grump, the Signpost used to actually be a well-respected and sober-headed publication. If there isn't enough energy to continue it at a reasonable standard of quality, I won't be disappointed if the current slow implosion ends in its final demise, as sad as that is to say. I won't be contributing anything to it myself in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right heading to put it under, but I just wanted to say that this was probably the wrong month for me to space out for a few days, aha. The pitchforks are nothing new so I ignored them until I saw what they were actually about. I know it was well-intentioned, but that humor piece was pretty hurtful... I hope we do better next month. I'm crossing my fingers that I can get a less soul-crushing job so I can actually write full articles myself. ♦AcoriSage 02:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also hasn't it been a full year since Corrine passed? It feels weird to list it as "front page news". ♦AcoriSage 03:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Acorri: See WT:POST#This isn't normal (reflection/brainstorming ideas) (also, its probably best to keep the newsroom for discussions of upcoming issues, and have other discussions at the main talk page) - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Ah, okay, sorry. I have been a bit spacey, heh... ♦AcoriSage 03:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report

I've made a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns so will recuse myself from writing the Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be willing to write it --DannyS712 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. You will probably want to check WP:ARC about mid-month for new cases. Also, please note this motion and associated events. By my quick count, there was resignation of a checkuser/oversighter under a cloud, allegations of disclosure of private information, removal of CU/OS bits and de-sysopping. This was covered on reddit and elsewhere. The initial resignation (only) was covered at October's arbitration report - Bri.public (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Can I ask why the motion wasn't included in February's edition? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply missed it while it was posted at WP:ARC. I was on wikibreak and rather out of touch with WP-land in the first half of the month. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny, It might be worth mentioning this clarification request as well, but of course I say that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the E-in-C?

A fancy title? A real role? A content creator? A content aggregator? A content checker / approver? Handling reader complaints and taking responsibility for issues after publication? Per Editor-in-chief or tailored for SP purpose? Please avoid fancy titles until the role is clearly defined responsibility-wise if you want to avoid the blame game when something goes wrong. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

February issue aftermath

I'd like to say thanks for the opportunity to lead this team but now I think it's time to turn over the reins and de-list myself as acting Editor-in-Chief. Part of the problem for the last issue was sheer lack of time to comprehensively consider the items I'd already written up as pre-publication checks. I suggest the team update the checklist with consideration to the recent MfD and community feedback; my own opinions on freedom of action here may be extreme.

Hope that someone here has the courage/interest/wherewithal to write up the aftermath of the February issue. For the record the final outcome of the MfD was to blank but not to delete the offending column. Voting was heavy, coming close to making the top-ranked deletion debates. Vote count:

Delete 45

Keep 28

Comment 5

Blank 2

Retract 1

Neutral 1

Replace 1

I'm available by email if you want to discuss offline. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bri, I'm sorry this was how things turned out for you. It sucks being the one in charge during this kind of controversy. :( –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I am willing to attempt to write something up about this if others would be okay with me taking point as an inexperienced contributor. I'm not about to let the Signpost go away anytime soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Go for it. We do need a post-mortem of this dispute from a neutral observer. — JFG ^talk 11:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate that the formal E-in-C title is not used unless the office holders are willing to stand-up to what that formal title entails, or re-define it purely in SP contexts. Highfalutin titles are all well and good, but if in reality it is a content aggregator job then let's be clear about it. @MJL: if you need input, I will provide some. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

JFG, I am probably not neutral. I opposed the humor article before publication but the concerns were shut down (second link). My idea would be to just to make a statement about how we are an inclusive publication, and we do not consider that article to meet are high quality standards. etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Even if the (heavily canvassed) consensus was that the article was inappropriate, a lot of bad blood has been spilled by several very mean spirited individuals, long-timers and newbies alike, including editors and admins for whom I have had the highest respect. There are people who will look for any excuse feel they have been insulted, attacked, or intimidated (ANI is full of it) and there are the drama lovers and wannabe Wiki police who rejoice in the opportunity to join in the fray and pile on. Wikipedia is getting out of control. It's time to stop the fiasco. Kudpung3 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Dear news room staff, fwiw, even as someone who voted speedy delete, I'm sad to see Editor in Chrief Bri has stood down. I don't see why any needed to step down. As per my vote I didn't think you guys warranted any censure at all. I'd guess some might have thought otherwise due to the framing effect. I read the article first via the Signpost, before Id seen any of the canvasing. While I'm quite progressive on these things, I didn't see anything wrong with the article, thought the joke was directed just at elite SJWs, and found it the funniest thing I'd read for years. I went to the MfD expecting to cast my normal Keep, only changing my mind after reading what others had to say. The point I'm getting to is that while I agree the essay was potentially highly damaging, this wasn't obvious. It may have been a misjudgement not to catch it, but only a minor one. Yes said minor mistake had a big impact, but this was a For Want of a Nail effect, due to these gender topics being such a minefield. Hopefully both Bri and Barbara will soon feel ok to return to their roles, if they want to. Thanks for the excellent reading you've been making for us over the years.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What's next?

I don't really know what to say here. @Bri and Kudpung: helped save the Signpost and were great editors. I'm afraid that this incident could be the death knell of the Signpost and I'd like to do everything possible to avoid the closing of the magazine. I'll ask all current staff and former contributors to weigh in here on 2 questions

• What do we do for the next issue? I see 2 choices if we want to keep the SP open
  • Publish the next issue on schedule
  • Wait one month until things get straightened out
• What changes do we need to make in the long run?
  • Everybody will have different views on this, but I'll start it out with
    • There should be more long-form, in-depth articles, and
    • We shouldn't just publish articles as submitted by the authors (with some copyediting), but engage in an editorial dialogue with them where the editorial process challenges the writer and improves the article.

Most folks will probably say that we just need more submissions, and that strong editing will thus decrease the quality of the SP. I'd disagree with that - the way to publish quality articles is through strong editing, and then more quality submissions will follow.

One thing about the February crisis that worries me. Signpost writers were attacked in 4-5 different forums and even had emails sent about them trying to have them removed from volunteer positions. We have to take a stand against that or nobody will want to contribute to the SP. I have no problem saying that the SP made a mistake publishing the article. I might even invite Fae to write an opinion piece explaining his concerns (properly edited of course). But there are proper ways to disagree with a publication, i.e. on the Signpost comment pages, then write the editor for a concern that otherwise can't wait.

I don't really have a lot of experience writing for the Signpost - really only 4 articles (plus a few "In the media" blurbs). But I have to say that those 4 articles have been among the highlights of the 12 years I've edited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs a place where writers can write in-depth articles criticizing the powers-that-be, whether those powers are admins, arbs, the Board, WMF management, or commercial interests. We also need a place where we can celebrate everything that is great about Wikipedia. We need the Signpost.

So what do you think our plan should be?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to publish on time. We still have twenty days to get the issue around and delaying by a month will send a bad message to the readership. Further, no changes need to be made. The humour essay was criticized in draft form and Bri chose to go ahead with it. It was a single mistake. If you believe the error was systemic, then I think you need to think long and hard about the sort of people that edit here and the pressure we're under to prevent slipping away from regular publication. This newsletter used to be weekly. We don't need to institute a political litmus test on articles lest the editors whom ARBCOM chooses not to punish come after us, again. As for me, I need to see the contributors coalesce around a new EiC or I will consider resigning my position, as well. I cannot agree to push the "publish next edition" button on behalf of any random editor that shows up and claims the job. Bri had Kudpung's approval and I hope the next EiC can similarly show they carry the political consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, (1) I say we are going to publish a new issue on time. If we don't do that, then this publication may effectively be dead. (2) I plan on writing something later today, but we need to stop thinking of the Signpost as this separate group from the general Wikipedia community. I swear every single person refers to us as like they aren't included. If you read the Signpost, then you have just as much stake in it as anyone else. Once people recognize that they have as much control over this publication as the spooky sounding "editorial board," we'll be hopping again. That's what makes us different, and that's what makes us great.

Should I expect to see a "In the media" blurb written by you the start of next month? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

MJL, Why should you be expecting anything? This sounds a bit bossy to me. Considering the long comments on your talk page, are you sure your're not 'rushing innto things' again? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

To miss the next month's edition is to instantly kill the Signpost. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hardly a catastrophe if The Signpost never appears again, Vami_IV. Those who escalated the issue into a farce should have thought aboiut that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should publish the next issue precisely on schedule. That's MARCH 28. (Actually the box at the top says 31 March, though the Signpost main page says MARC 28. I'll settle for 31 March) That's a lot of work and we should definitely get to work now.

@Chris troutman: I see 2 critical people here; 1) you - is there anybody else who knows how to push the "publish next edition" button? and 2) the next editor-in-chief, who needs to take personal responsibility for publishing every article. Finding an EIC needs to be done within a week. You're right that the staff needs to coalesce around him or her. How do we find this person? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been debating taking on the mantle myself personally, but I'm not exactly sure what exactly needs doing as EIC. I certainly don't have time to write much or do things like the Tech Report and interviews or figuring out the technical side of things and the like, but I could squeeze in an op-ed and review pieces before submission. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC)Good to see a volunteer. Folks should correct me about what the duties of EiC are, but as I see them they are 1) encouraging people to write articles for us (including going out and saying to somebody "you obviously have a view on xxx, would you write an SP article on it". 2) Discussing the drafts with writers in order to be sure everything is clear, point out the spots that need work, suggesting changes in wording or organization, and (in hopefully very few cases) saying "no, we can't publish that" 3) helping with the copyediting where necessary. 4) writing needed articles that nobody else has volunteered for. 5) signing off on each article before it's published. And most importantly making sure everything that needs to be done before publication is actually done.

Since you are putting yourself forward as a candidate, could you say a line or two about your experience working with Signpost or in journalism in general? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No formal experience working in journalism much, in the sense that I never edited a newspaper, or been employed as a journalist. But I wrote several Signpost pieces over the years, which can be seen here User:Headbomb/My work#Signpost (plus an upcoming one at User:Headbomb/Crapwatch). I've also edited the Bot Newsletter for the last few years, but that's a very irregular newsletter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

While past EICs have generally also been a writer for one of the regular sections, there is no actual requirement to do so – just the things Smallbones mentioned above, plus writing the occasional (or more often if you want) "From the editor(s)" piece, and deciding which section names (Opinion, Op-Ed, Special report, etc) to use for submissions you approve. - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If I were to take the reins as EIC, I'd appreciate having an assistant editor. If @Bri:'s willing to help with the transition in that capacity, that would likely be tip top. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I'll provide technical commentary as required and as able, but it's really best for the publication to have the new crew unambiguously in charge. Also, I have this admin's comment hanging over my head Either you withdraw this trash and apologize, or I will be sure that the community will debate more serious consequences for the editorial staff. I'm not apologizing, and The Signpost hasn't withdrawn anything (note the page blanking was preemptively made by another administrator, not associated with The Signpost, prior to resolution of the various discussions). IMO a forced apology is a logical impossibility. I've made this statement and my XfD comments which speak for themselves. So. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Funnily, Bri and Kudpung could publish. Honestly Evad37's script makes it so easy anyone could. The issue there is getting the page-mover and massmessage rights, both locally and globally. I'm still able to publish, I just wouldn't want to distribute copy without consensus as I don't control what we publish, I just press the button. There are also written instructions for the process, including the time-intensive manual process. As for finding a new EiC, I still think WMF should be paying money so we can get someone as more than a volunteer. The EiC should have instincts about what we cover and what we don't, with the requisite ability to cajole volunteer contributors to complete their write-ups on time, not to mention copyediting. The Signpost is not encyclopedic and having editors beat reporting takes a different motivation and skill set than writing articles. The Signpost is always a magnet for opinion pieces but our regular items like News&Notes, Arb report, traffic report, etc. take a level of dedication. Whomever feels motivated to take up this duty should already know that we need the help, which is why I know chasing Bri away was a foolish thing for Wikipedians to have done. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It certainly was a foolish thing for Wikipedians to have done. Has anybody been doing the most important beat News&Notes lately? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In the past year, Bri and Kudpung have been the most-prolific contributors to News & Notes. Pine contributed to the last issue and pythoncoder has contributed some, in the past. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We haven't really had any regular, non-EIC writers for N&N since early 2017 - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Evad37, I see no reason why that can't change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I do MJL, because The Signpost has been making appeals for help for years. Maybe at this stage you might wish to consider reading several years of back issues, because in addition to having some substantial editing experience and being well informed of policies and guidelines, the editorial team should be expected to have some institutional memory, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I have already taken up the task of reading several years of back issues as I like to submit my favorites to "From the Archives." –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

MJL, what I meant was that by reading back isues, you should be able to lear something about Wikipedia - not that you should simply use it for your intention of filling future colums on The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure it can change, and it would be good if we did have one or more regular writers for N&N – just no-one's volunteered to do so in the last couple of years, so it either becomes another task for the EIC(s) to do, or issues get published without a N&N section - Evad37 [talk] 08:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also available as a backup publisher - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Blatant distraction in the form of pageview analysis (& miscellaneous musings)

I’ve taken a look at the pageviews for this issue’s articles for the last 10 days. Here are the raw statistics:

• From the editors: 1200
• News and notes: 1250
• In focus: 900
• Discussion report: 1050
• Featured content: 800
• Arbitration report: 850
• Traffic report: 900
• Technology report: 900
• Gallery: 900
• Recent research: 900
• From the archives: 750
• Essay: 1100
• Humor: 8700

And now the analysis:

• Overall, the Humor page got obviously got a lot of views, because of the MfD.
• The Essay got some pageviews for similar reasons.
• Rounding out the top 5 are From the Editors, News and Notes, and my column, the Discussion Report. I think this shows that the main reason people read The Signpost is for its "hard news" coverage of Wikipedia happenings, because it's hard to get this information anywhere else. It would also go against the trend toward a more magazine-type thing that some people have proposed.
• It would be a shame if The Signpost were to die for the reason noted above. It's good to see that people are paying attention to us (albeit for the wrong reasons), but with few new writers/editors joining and many old writers/editors leaving, it's hard to see The Signpost lasting much longer in its current state. I have no plans to leave at this time, but if this ship keeps sinking, it gets harder to justify sticking around. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from someone who previously was a regular contributor and publication manager

Hi, I have a few comments based on my experience.

• When I was the Publication Manager, including when the Editor-in-Chief was not active, I made a point of reading every Signpost piece in each issue before I published the issue. I edited statements that I thought should not be included or were too risky to include. My recollection is that the entire publication process took me 2 to 3 hours, including reading the pieces.
• I chose not to read the piece that was the subject of controversy in the last issue, although I'm aware of the controversy.
• While having the Signpost be published on a regular schedule is good, I think that quality is more important than quantity or frequency. I think that having a schedule for regular publication is good, but if an issue is late or missed, it's relatively easy to recover from that. The community has accepted publication frequencies of weekly, biweekly, and monthly.
• I think that the most challenging part of the Editor-in-Chief and Publication Manager roles is that they should be filled for every issue. The Signpost can't be published without someone who has permission to publish actually taking the step to publish, and the person who takes that step should, in my opinion, read every article before publication. Finding someone, or a small group of people, to do those tasks reliably is difficult, and my guess is that part of the problem is that the people involved almost inevitably have other things that they do with their time besides volunteer for the Signpost.
• I am in favor of finding a funding source so that the Editor-in-Chief and/or Publication Manager roles can be paid part time jobs, with the amount of payment depending on how much work they do, including writing content, communicating with the other Signpost contributors, and publishing each issue. If those people want to work 10 hours per week so that an issue of the Signpost is published every week, or 10 hours per month so that an issue is published every month, or something in between, I could support any of the above. However, for that to be successful, there needs to be a funding source, and the funding source probably shouldn't be WMF given the Signpost's traditional role of analyzing and reporting on WMF's activities. I don't know who else would be willing to provide the funds, but I'd be very interested in finding a source of funding.
• While the controversy from the most recent issue seems to have put a lot of stress on people, and the humor piece sounds like something that I wouldn't have published, I suggest putting the problem into a larger perspective. The Signpost seems to be read by hundreds of people, and fills a unique role in the community. I would like for it to continue to be published. I will probably continue to contribute occasionally. I think that a regular monthly publication, even with a modest amount of content, would be good.

Best wishes, --Pine(✉) 23:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)