Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-05-21 17:06:53.
April 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03 04 05	May 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02	June 2024 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The Signpost currently has 5532 articles, 694 issues, and 13477 pages (4381 talk and 9096 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 7 (2024-05-16) ·

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

Articles and pageviews for 2024-05-16

Pageviews for 2024-05-16 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day Traffic report Crawl out through the fallout, baby 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 Special report Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? 695 695 695 695 695 695 695 Op-Ed Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure 7339 7339 7339 7339 7339 7339 7339 News and notes Democracy in action: multiple elections 787 787 787 787 787 787 787 In the media Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis 1463 1463 1463 1463 1463 1463 1463 Comix Generations 675 675 675 675 675 675 675 Arbitration report Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 773 773 773 773 773 773 773

Previous issue: 2024-04-25 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2024-04-25

Pageviews for 2024-04-25 (V) Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day WikiProject report WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) 478 663 817 817 817 817 817 WikiConference report WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap 544 773 881 881 881 881 881 Traffic report O.J., cricket and a three body problem 510 764 909 909 909 909 909 Recent research New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users 910 1208 1392 1392 1392 1392 1392 News and notes A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law 786 1011 1168 1168 1168 1168 1168 In the media Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV 1494 1972 2326 2326 2326 2326 2326

Next News and notes

I've added a couple of headlines:

1. The long-awaited draft of the white paper on research ethics and privacy is up on Meta-Wiki, with community feedback invited (this was one of the outcomes of the Grabowski/Klein ArbCom case on the Holocaust in Poland)
2. Former Steward User:Mardetanha has been SanFran-banned

Anyone who'd like to have a stab at writing these up is welcome. I am still under pressure with work and am grateful for any help.

Incidentally, mentioning Shira Klein, she has another, more recent claim to fame now, as one of the authors of the Academics4peace open letter titled "Genocide is plausible; stop arms to Israel". For more see [1] --Andreas JN466 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There's been no discussion of what brought about the SanFranBan, right? I can't help but wonder if MENA was involved. Note, the user is still listed as one of the two primary contacts at Iranian Wikimedians User Group (on Meta). The concern stems from this WMF announcement from December 2022 and our coverage from January 2023 which stated the roots of the December 2022 bans lie in concerns expressed to the WMF about the Farsi Wikipedia some years ago. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Mardetanha (Mohsen Salek) was mentioned by name in 2019 articles by Radio Zamaneh and Open Democracy.

Note that there is no conceivable outing concern here. Mohsen was a very prominent movement figure for many years and fully out with his name, see Meta-Wiki, Commons categories etc. Andreas JN466 08:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bri Do you need some help to complete the column? I can work on some smaller parts, if needed! Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume I won't be able to complete this column, so please do whatever you can with it. If I can contribute more this month it will probably be with small things like copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bri I don't feel comfortable enough to elaborate on the two existing lead entries (being totally unfamiliar with the subject), but I'll try to sort the brief notes at the bottom out! Plus, I'm working on another last-gasp lead blurb, since there has been a significant update on the "Public Domain Wars" over here in Italy. Oltrepier (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I've finished working on my last blurb and submitted it into the column.

Like I wrote before, though, I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the two other subjects to take over those lead stories... @Jayen466, Smallbones, and JPxG: Is there anyone else who might be able to save the day? Oltrepier (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have done a minimal write-up of those two stories. :/ Andreas JN466 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jayen466 Good, thank you! I've copy-edited both of them slightly, and now it's only my own blurb that still needs another pair of eyes. Oltrepier (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Something that seems important is buried

Something that seems important is buried: the number of active administrators is again at an all-time low (modern wiki history). I don't have time/energy to elaborate on the item for this issue and it's starting to feel a bit like beating a dead horse. But maybe someone else has a fresh approach? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bri I feel like we should focus on it in detail for the next issue, to be honest: it would also be a good occasion to break down the proposals that could help improve the RfA process and expand the admin pool back again. Oltrepier (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Active editors (2024 in yellow)

Sounds reasonable. I'd like to find a way to bring these data into the narrative. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing that we are procrastinating on publication of this issue again, I have added a story that follows up on last issue's Technology report (and could also run as separate Technology report again, I guess). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delay (pt. 2)

I'm so sorry for asking this at the last minute, but still... would it be okay if we put off the publication for one-two days?

I feel like it would allow us to finish the job with some of the columns (mainly "News and notes", "Recent research" and the "WikiProject Report") more calmly, as well as solve the Maher situation. Oltrepier (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was actually deliberating on this a few hours ago and regretting that it had gotten so close to deadline, because I'd prefer to put it forward a couple days also. If nobody else has any objections, I think we should put it a day forward or so tomorrow morning. jp×g🗯️ 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and updated the deadline template accordingly (seeing that nobody had objected here). As discussed several times before, it would be great if we could steer things back to a more reliable publication schedule again; with the last issue things were again quite dysfunctional in that regard.

On my end, I'm as always working to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@HaeB On second thought, I'm afraid I don't have enough energy and/or expertise to help you with the RR column: I'm so sorry for that... Oltrepier (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah On a side note, how is the Wikiproject report going? Oltrepier (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oltrepier It is ready from my end! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is looking like a publishable issue. I was hoping I would have time to write a couple pieces for it, but I did not, so I haven't -- tomorrow morning we fly. jp×g🗯️ 07:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

On second thought I think that it may actually be possible to get a thing about the current shitstorm and an arbitration report out by tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

My wrist is too fucked up to write long articles today so I am only going to publish what we have. jp×g🗯️ 10:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG That's fine, I think we still did a great job overall! Oltrepier (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes -- you did a great job! I regrettably sat on my keister for most of this time. jp×g🗯️ 12:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiConference report

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for next issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia Summit 2024 report

I attended and will write a report for Signpost on the Wikimedia Summit 2024, which was a Wikimedia Movement governance meeting in April in Berlin. The topic was management of Wikimedia Movement resources. My view of the event was that it was and is an attempt to negotiate and get Wikimedia community and Wikimedia Foundation agreement on how to spend the US$1 billion that the Wikimedia Foundation collects every 6-8 years. This event's outcomes are likely to cited as the rationale for lots of decisions over the next 10 years.

I plan on writing this but could use help from anyone and everyone.

I attended this and can report on some aspects. Here is where I anticipate needing help:

1. Identify the reports of anyone who made any
   1. from user:jmabel - meta:Cascadia Wikimedians/2024 Wikimedia Summit report
   2. from User:Ainali - audio interviews to publish
2. solicit reactions from any of the 150 other attendees from 50 countries
3. summarize and present the offical report at meta:Wikimedia Summit 2024
4. Post notes here, especially links to any reporting, social media comments, or anything else published about the event
5. Anyone who is member of a Wikimedia affiliate can contact their representative to share their thoughts, even briefly, for reporting in Signpost
6. I appreciate anyone with editorial recommendations for how our reporting will look. I can draft something, but appreciate collaboration
7. Choose some photos to showcase from Commons:Category:Wikimedia Summit 2024

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Great! I have started publishing my podcasts already. The first one is here (or here on Commons). I think there will be 8 episodes in total over the next 2-3 weeks, and if you want to follow them, they will be on the tag wikimedia-summit-2024 (should work in a podcast app). Or if you would like to follow all coming episodes in English, use the tag english. Ainali (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote for UCCCC ends 9 May; publication 11 May

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

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

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

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

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

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

No extension.

Other elections to announce

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

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

20:6+1 Special report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 

Reporting a likely bug in the Newsroom

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

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

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

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

Pitch: story on WikiCite and the upcoming Wikidata graph split

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

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

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

• User:Bluerasberry/signpost_wikicite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what article name?

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

20:6+1 In the media

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

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

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

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

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

20:6+1 News and notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20:6+1 Arbitration report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: User:Ixtal/AAA

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

Next "In the media" (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• LGBTQUIA+ seems to be Friction Magazine's acronym, not the authors of the letter. It's used to say Following numerous press articles on the treatment of trans people on Wikipedia, several LGBTQUIA+ contributors have written this open letter that we are publishing today on Friction Magazine. in the summary while the editors themselves use the shorter acronym and the byline is for "Contributeurices LGBTQIA+". I realized that only after adding a clarification to the article the U is for "undefined" (and, weirdly enough but neither here nor there, seems to primarily be a West Coast US thing).
• wrt "contributeurices", AFAICT it's a gender neutral reclamation, stemming from discussions in French linguistic circles over the last few years on refeminization (French dropped the feminine forms of many words and kept only the masculine, there have been efforts in recent years 1) to reintroduce the feminine and 2) to hybridize the feminine and masculine). The french feminine form of contributors would be "contributrices" [2][3][4] ie: this is some weird French thing, like if we combined "actors" and "actresses" as "actoresses" to show the group was gender neutral

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

Essay May 14 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Included in issue 8 draft

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

20:6+1 Traffic report

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

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

Next news and notes - WMF reports

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

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

May 16th out

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

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

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

Unreviewed WMF submissions

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

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

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

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

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