Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

IRS Form 990

I did a search for this form It seems to be available at https://www.guidestar.org/profile/20-0049703 if you get something called a "pro report" which I didn't bother with. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703 has the forms online. The 2016 form is at https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/full_text/201821349349310527/IRS990

Are these forms available anywhere onwiki? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's public information, but AFAIK, the WMF has not posted anything since 2016. The salary bill increases at an alarming rate. One could almost believe jobs are created just to use up the money rather than invest in areas where the volunteer communities could benefit directly (more/better software, more Wikimania scholarships, more grants for 'genuine', useful volunteer led projects, etc, etc.). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Found it https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2017-2018_Form_990.pdf

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Call to end The Signpost

• End the Signpost, English Wikipedia Village Pump

The proposal did not pass. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact it was snow closed. This is a de facto referendum that the community strongly supports publication. Not the same imprimatur as a widely announced RfC, but in my opinion that's not necessary. Now we need to see some self-governance proposals as Smallbones indicated. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case

In case you missed it, Arbcom has declined to take the Signpost case [1] ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In The Media

All 16Gb of Wikipedia now stored on DNA strands. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade 'We're all to blame for Wikipedia's huge sexism problem'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia – what’s going on?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

[breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/03/google-toxicity-detection-tool-rated-wikipedia-comments-to-women-as-more-hostile/ Detox tool]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't include Breitbart anymore in The Signpost. !st Bb links are blacklisted. 2nd an Arb has strongly requested that it not be linked. This last issue I just mentioned it without a link (saying to find the link on your own to preempt the obvious question of why no link). T&S requested the offending material in this issue be removed. Most of the opposition to including Bb in ITM likely is due to the author of the Bb article on Wikipedia. He is indefinitely banned and IMHO was given much too much rope to hang himself before he was banned. He has confirmed his identity to me and it's the same guy. Sp why did I try to include Bb in ITM twice? Not because I agree with what they say, just the opposite. We need to know what everybody is saying about Wikipedia. But that logic only goes so far when people get hurt by what they say. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that the same banned/blocked user I ran into here[2][3][4][5] or is it a different one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit Catch-22, because I'm a firm believer that with the exception of outright PA, gender insults, outing, or doxing, The Signpost is not necessarily subject to the same rules as Wikipedia articles. Needless to say, on another note, I would never report on anything that's said on Wikipediocracy for example, for as far as I'm concerned it's a true cesspit and I naïvely prefer to imagine it doesn't even exist. Otherwise, as you say, we need to know what everybody is saying about Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I wouldn't want this to turn into a major thread in the Newsroom, because it's not really the right venue, but perhaps Guy Macon might like to chime inn here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Kudpung, and would be pleased if this thread stopped here. This isn't really a Signpost-specific issue, and it looks like others are addressing the larger issues such as a banned user getting something published on a poor-quality site and someone linking to it on Wikipedia as a rather innovative way to evade the block.

In particular, I strongly support the idea that "with the exception of outright PA, gender insults, outing, or doxing, The Signpost is not necessarily subject to the same rules as Wikipedia articles." A newspaper does need standards as to what is not allowed, but those standards might very well be more restrictive than the rest of the encyclopedia in some areas and less restrictive in others. The key is to choose restrictions that support the basic mission of sometimes being a critic of the WMF, Arbcom, etc., sometimes supporting the WMF, Arbcom, etc., and sometimes being a whistle-blower. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Some basic working assumptions:

• We are subject to the same rules as any talk page or more precisely any "article" in project space.
• These rules are slightly different than, but usually weaker than, the standard ethics of journalism
  • So net - by following both sets of rules, we have slightly higher restrictions
  • But interpretations of rules on Wikipedia vary drastically at times, e.g. on who dislikes what we write. That's their problem, not ours.
• I encourage The Signpost staff to get together in this space to hash out a 'code of conduct" or similar. Maybe even set forth a "Signpost charter" for approval by the overall community, or there was a suggestion that we organize as a User group with our "charter" on meta with approval by the affiliations committee. I'd wait at least a month for the current storm to blow over, but our long-term recognition as a newspaper by the Wikipedia community seems to suffer every time somebody is the subject of a controversial article. So, is the solution not to publish controversial articles and just be a tame "newsletter" that doesn't examine what people are saying? No way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree, Smallbones, but chicken-egg/egg-chicken: The Signpost first needs a team of staff... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Framgate

Know Your Meme since 4 July has had an entry for Framgate aka Fram controversy. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Slate on the "Trump war zone"

As SashiRolls noted, a well-researched article was published late May in Slate: Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone, covering Wikipedians' discussions about our Donald Trump page. This coverage was overlooked in the May and June Signpost issues; somebody should write about it this time, but I'll recuse because I have been interviewed by the article's author and he has quoted me in his piece. — JFG ^talk 11:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I second the motion that this be added into the article itself next month. I think it would be interesting to focus on the Mormon angle of WP:BOLD. One wonders if MrX & Awilley, in particular, are part of the BE:BOLDER tribe, since they do seem to work together. The Slate author himself noticed that AWilley approved MrX's text despite a no consensus RFC:

[T]he results were roughly tied, but even final tallies don’t necessarily dictate outcomes.

I suggest interviewing both to see if they've ever chatted about en.wp temerity & zeal somewhere out in Mormon country. I'm sure their Frank responses would be interesting.

Oh and I do hope someone writes an article about zakat & the five pillars next month too. Maybe if someone does, y'all'll be able to interview the user named neutrality, to get a fuller picture of wiki-religion & the peoples' underground!

JFG, unlike MrX and AWilley, you haven't provided as much clue about your religious affinities. Your comments about Swiss neutrality in mainspace are refreshingly agnostic, but still ... y'all did burn a local hero at the stake a while back (before all this noise about "America")... do you think there should be more? or fewer? heretic-burnings on en.wp ... and more? or fewer? turf wars? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Servetus was burned in 1553, and Geneva only joined Switzerland in 1815. That doesn't excuse the burning, but at least it doesn't ascribe it to the Swiss spirit. About the rest of your query/statement, I'll remain neutral. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wired on the "Brexit Turf War"

This Wired article was also missed in the "In the Media" section in April, May & June. It will be interesting to see the explanation for these two mainstream articles about untouchable gatekeepers being missed. Maybe the "that time of the month" excuse will carry the day, or perhaps there will be concerns about ruffling an Unblockable's feathers? (Both articles received significant coverage at Wikipediocracy.)

By the way, here's a lovely recent contribution from the star of the article showing their inherent gate-keeping goodness (a 99.9°F misrepresentation of the source). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:

• This is a participatory project. If you wish to see a very brief write-up about a specific article in ITM, please just write it up and put it in the article, a week before deadline would be good.
• You've got about 20-60 words to comment on the article after identifying the title (with link) and the publication. That's about enough for a quote, or a brief description of the scope of the article, maybe even half a sentence on the quality or the particular POV of the article.
• Please don't try to continue any on-Wiki disputes into the description of the article.
• I'll edit your contribution the same way I would for anybody else.
• The selection of articles to cover is pretty much up to the contributors that month. We don't pretend that the coverage is exhaustive. It is rare that we go back more than a month for articles to cover.
• I don't give a flying fuck about whatever they do on Wikipediocracy.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were a grown adult, Smallbones. That last line suggests to me you are still a teenager. How unfortunate.

A proper article would acknowledge that major articles on insiders (in Wired and in Slate) were missed and explain why. Do what you want with the Signpost reputation.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Financial review

I do want to cover the finances of the WMF, but I want to do it in-depth, with qualified people doing much of the work. What do I mean by "qualified people"? Well I do think that I'm marginally qualified, having taught finance at the university level for about 20 years. That includes an investments class about once each year which would cover the basics of financial analysis (say 3 hours of lecture). I was also a Chartered Financial Analyst until I retired (note that the CFA code of ethics says that being a former CFA is not a qualification and does not indicate any special expertise). Let's try for 3 articles.

1. A basic review of the numbers and maybe the methods and procedures used to calculate them. Some or all of the writing should probably be done by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or Chartered Accountant (CA). If anybody knows a qualified accountant who might like to help - please send them here! They would have to have some pretty good writing abilities - a lot of people might consider reading an article about accounting numbers and procedures about as interesting as watching paint dry. It doesn't need to be that way for WMF's numbers and our audience.

2. Probably the most important part of covering WMF's finances would be to do an interview with the CFO about the finance department and budgeting. I'll limit this to 10 questions. A couple obvious ones might seem like "softball questions" but will allow the CFO to make sure he gets across what he wants to say, e.g. "Can you describe the finance department, how many people work there, what do they do day-to-day? What is the most important function of the department, in your opinion?" After a couple of those, we can then ask some fairly pointed questions. Please post your suggestions for questions here, or email them to me. Please be aware that fairly pointed questions are welcome, insulting questions are not. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

3. A third part of the coverage could be a pair of pro&con essays. This will need a good editor to keep the 2 essays balanced, in terms of length and topics covered. I'll ask @Bluerasberry: if he want to do the editing. I assume @Guy Macon: wants to do one essay, which I'm almost sure I could writing the opposing essay for. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: I'm afraid your reputation is in tatters and your position thus untenable. ——SerialNumber54129 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:, that comment is rather maladroit. If I were one of those disingenuous people who parse every word on Wikipedia in the merest hope that they can find an excuse to claim insult, I would be having your guts for garters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be interesting, especially if we each criticized a pre-publication version of the other essay and tried to improve our essays whenever the other person had a good point.

My essay would most likely say:

• We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details.
• We should limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views, server costs, or whatever other metric you like). Even "don't spend more than double what you spent last year" has been rejected by the WMF. Maybe I should see if they will agree to "don't spend more than one hundred times what you spent last year" to see if any limit is acceptable...
• We should build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad. (The WMF has another place they store money that they can dip into. It should be kept large enough to cover pretty much any emergency.)

(joking comment) So would an opposing essay come out in favor of unlimited spending increases, reduced financial transparency, and an endowment that is really just another bank account with a fancy name? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's good info to have. A lot of this would be handled by the article editor. It would be no good to have two articles of different length discussing different topics. In my experience there is no chance of keeping each part of the article secret from the other writer, nor is there a reason to do that.

For the record, I thought you wanted to reprint or update your "cancer" article. In that case I would have noted that

• exponential growth (in revenues, costs, etc.) is not a rare experience. Almost all industries (can anybody name an exception?) and very many successful companies have all gone through a phase of exponential growth. This is generally considered to be a good thing. Sure, exponential growth can't go on forever and it's difficult in real time to identify when it has stopped. It can also be a difficult period when the "normal growth" period starts, but there are more difficult periods, e.g. the very early start up period, and the period starting "negative growth". But many industries and companies make a smooth transition to normal growth.
• Your transition to "the WMF must be wasting money" from your "exponential growth" argument doesn't seem to have much of a connection. Why does the one imply the other?
• Do you have any real evidence for wasteful spending, e.g. you seem to have a thing about programming being inefficient can you give evidence of another company spending the same or less to maintain and upgrade a similar set of software?
• Perhaps you're saying that you just don't like the programs that the WMF spends money on, perhaps you don't like the money spent on expansion to the Global South. Can you give a reason why we should trust your opinion on this over that of the Board or top management at the WMF.

I may be back to look at your new arguments, but in general I think we need to have an editor in here playing referee. I'd expect that the whole financial review would be published about August 30, so we may as well take our time and get good drafts ready by the 1st week of August. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That (exponential growth) is something that would make a good point/counterpoint discussion. I would argue that exponential growth in revenues and spending is (usually -- it can be overdone) a good thing in cases where the company (or should we just focus on non profits?) has exponentially increasing donations, spending, and what they accomplish. Imagine a charity that feeds starving orphans. Having donations, spending, and orphans fed all get ten times bigger is a Good Thing. Having donations and spending get ten times bigger with the actual amount of orphan feeding staying about the same and no new jobs (feeding starving adults, even saving kittens) added on is a Bad Thing. In fact, it would lead me to suspect that the orphan-feeding charity must be wasting money. If the charity is extremely resistant to disclosing any details about how the money is spent, that would strengthen my suspicions. Nonetheless, they would still be suspicions, not something that I could prove. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The WMF does not have 'growth' in a corporate sense. The begging for donations is not the same as successful marketing for a saleable product or service. The funds don't go to feeding starving orphans either - a lot of the money goes on the staff's own privileges, or sitting around coming up with new ideas to write reports on or give lectures to the converted (which, if you look closely, is what every Wikimania is all about - and I'm sure my good friend Bluerasberry has noticed that too). Guy, you've been around on Wiki (and possibly in RL) as long as I have and by today's WP registrations and WMF staff tenure, that's quite a long time.

We both know that the WMF's activity has been a constant litany of squandered and wasted money on ridiculous software experiments, unprofessional business mistakes, unproductive staff junkets, refusal to listen to the advice of members of the community who are more qualified than the staff, and the worst of it is that the unpaid volunteers have to use their time and skill to put things right and put pressure on the Foundation to put things right. Somehow this has to stop or the project will be bleeding more admins and dedicated users.

I welcome every initiative, hard or soft, to obtain greater transparency, and The Signpost is one organ that can be very instrumental in achieving something; not only because it is read by users and readers, but juicy stuff gets picked up by the established press. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A word about aggression

Clearly Smallbones wants to try a less aggressive tone ("Please be aware that fairly pointed questions are welcome, insulting questions are not. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar") when calling for more transparency than I have tried (WP:CANCER). It looks like Kudpung favors a more aggressive tone (compare my "...it would lead me to suspect that [Wikipedia is] wasting money... Nonetheless, they would still be suspicions, not something that I could prove" with his "a lot of the money goes on the staff's own privileges, or sitting around coming up with new ideas to write reports on or give lectures to the converted" and "We both know that the WMF's activity has been a constant litany of squandered and wasted money on ridiculous software experiments, unprofessional business mistakes, unproductive staff junkets").

I think it would be safe to say that none of the the three different approaches are likely to ever result in actual financial transparency by the WMF.

The question is, are we going to work together as colleagues, acknowledging that we have different ways of expressing our desire for financial transparency without attacking each other with cries of "your way won't work! (as it was an established fact that my way will)"? I am willing to do that. Are the rest of you with me?

I would like to see multiple editors ask the following extremely polite and non-aggressive question again and again in multiple places.

Extended content

Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[6] That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that. I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely. If I can't get an itemized list of where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was computer equipment and how much was office furniture? A little bit of financial transparency would go a long way here. Guy Macon (talk)

If asked why that particular question, just say it was chosen to be easy to answer with specific numbers, not reveal how much people make, and to be noncontroversial. If someone sticks to their usual "too much work to answer" excuse, talk about how keeping track of how much is spent and whether the purchased items arrived is one of the main jobs of any accounting department.

Once we gather enough places where the question isn't answered, we can create a Signpost article with a title like "One Wikipedia editor's quest to find out how his donations are spent". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course we want to work together on this - because we are seriously concerned about what happens to the donations that our volunteer work brings in, and hence the WMF is answerable to us and we should rightfully be able to demand those answers. And not only if the office furniture equipment arrived, but also whether we are getting value for money from those on the payroll. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy, on a slightly different note, but nevertheless to do with transparency and expenditure, (over 100 staff + privileged users attending Wikimania in Sweden) have you seen this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(Flat voice, dubious tone) Yeah. I am going to stick to two things: [1] asking the WMF what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013, and [2] Asking the WMF to stop disriminating against blind people. That other issue is fascinating to me, but others are working the problem and I want to stay focused on once again being a complete failure at persuading the WMF to stop discriminating against blind people or at persuading the WMF to tell us what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased in 2012 and 2013. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy, sure. $5mio buys a lot of chairs, computers, and interactive whiteboards, etc., considering not all 300 staff work in the SF office, even if they buy expensive Mac laptops for everyone... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The most likely answer is that someone did something which really isn't all that bad; running out of budgeted money to buy things that we really need (like maybe a sink on the washroom or a new server in the computer room) and was told "just charge it under the computer equipment and office furniture account. Nobody will notice". If the WMF ever decides to actually practice financial transparency instead of just talking about it, we would know if my guess is right. Because the possibility exists that the computer equipment and office furniture account was used to pay for an executive's yacht. I don't think that happened, but if I had an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased in 2012 and 2013 I wouldn't have to guess. I would know. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Publishing script

@Chris troutman, Headbomb, Evad37, and Bri: The last 2 or 3 issues have been delayed in publishing due to some problems with the "script". This definitely needs to be fixed before our next issue. I don't know how to fix it - I'm not even sure what a script is. I suggest that anybody who made changes to the templates, script, etc. in the last 2-5 months please review them, and get a sign-off from Chris or Evad37 that they work in the final publication process. If anybody sees other potential causes to the problems, please post them here. Is there a way to test the publication process before the next issue? I'll definitely suggest that this be done, even when folks think that they've found the cause and fixed it. If the cause can't be found, I suggest that the script, templates, etc. be rolled back to their state 5 months ago.

Any comments or suggestions? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Odd, there were never any delays while I was E-in-C (with Bri's support and Chris troutman doing the publishing). I'm beginning to think that the current issues are due to a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' syndrome. Perhaps a rollback is the answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Last time, the "preparing for publication" step ran on discussion, news & notes, ITM, bright side, special report, traffic, technology, gallery, and recent research but did not run on archives, opinion, in focus, community, and op-ed. Something with the formatting/construction of the latter items differed with the former that seems to have prevented the javascript from running. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell the February issue was the last issue that the "preparing for publication" step ran perfectly. We may just have to roll back all templates, etc. back to that date, have a trial run and see if it works
• That date marks 2 developments. I became editor-in-chief, without knowing how the templates worked. It was just nothing I'd ever worked with on The Signpost before. I've asked folks here a couple of times if I was messing up the templates somehow and haven't received a clear "yes" from anybody. Could somebody check and give me a clear answer?
• The 2nd development is that @Headbomb: made several changes to the templates about that time including the "Signpost draft" template. Headbomb, could you check that these changes are not causing the problem? One potential problem that I see is that there are 2 places now to define the headline, author, and blurb(?). That definitely has confused me at times. Perhaps we're "collaborating" on causing the problem.
• There has been a repeated problem with "Recent research" in the very last line, a template adding the comments page. "NEXTISSUE" needs to be removed. I don't know how that gets there or why it keeps returning - perhaps it's in the pre-loaded version that starts the article.
• Otherwise I've compared the templates at the bottom and don't see any differences between the articles that work in the pfp step and those that don't, or between the pre-March articles and more recent articles.
• I suspect that the problem is with the templates at the top which have been changed since February, though it is not clear that there's a difference between the ones that work in the pfp step and the others.
• The list CT gave on the ones that work and the ones that don't suggest that the more commonly used rubrics work and the less commonly used ones don't, but it is not clear cut. It does not divide by the articles on the newsroom page that are automatically listed vs. the ones that have to be "moved up" manually. Overall this suggests to me that there's something in the pre-loaded text for the article.
• If it is solely up to me to fix this - you're just asking the wrong guy. As I said, I'm not totally sure what a script is. So I need some help here. Otherwise, all I can suggest is rolling everything back to it's February state *and then having a trial run.* . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Smallbones, the script is at User:Evad37/SPS.js. As you can see, there have been several updates since February. Can Evad37 say whether any of these updates might have caused a problem? (Apologies if it's some other script that's being discussed.) SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I cleared all changes I made with Evad37, and will not be suckered in spending one iota of my time helping The Signpost for as long as you are editor-in-chief, because it is clear my help is neither wanted nor desired, nor is anyone else's help desired. You wanted to run this publication on your own, so now deal with your problems on your own. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The updates have been the fixes for the problems, not the cause. The problems come about when things are done a bit differently to how they usually have been done for the past couple of years. The script has to make assumptions about how the article templates/wikitext are set up, in order to be able to e.g. locate the title and blurb of each article, and use them in the issue page and mass messages. Unfortunately there have been unexpected changes from these assumptions. The problems have been:

• In March there was wikitext and braces ({{ }}) in the RSS description instead of just plain text. [7]. (Fixed as part of [8])
• In April there were some template moved, one of which I missed when updating the script prior to publication. [9]. (Fixed with [10])
• In May there was an internal error in the MediaWiki software - nothing the script can do about that.[11]
• In June the "From the archives" was using templates from many years ago, instead of the current template set. [12]. (Fixed with [13])

Each time there's a problem, I make changes so it doesn't happen again next time. But then some other unrelated thing seems to go wrong. And one month it wasn't even anything wrong with the script itself. - Evad37 [talk] 02:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Evad37: - this explains a lot. It looks to me like the June "Archives" old template was my fault and the first 3 weren't. I do want to make sure everything works this next issue, so I'll ask 2-3 odd questions that I'm not 100% sure on.

• The order of the stories on the Newsroom pages shows up in the order on the contents page and the main page. I hope there's no issue in changing this order. I only thought of this when the interview with Katherine Maher showed up next to last in these pages.
• Does adding a new rubric (e.g. Tips and tricks) or changing an old one (e.g. From the editor(s) to From the editor) cause any issues?
• Does removing an article that was started but is not complete cause any issues?

The pre-formatted templates start up consistently with all the same templates, so I will likely just copy these templates here tomorrow and show you how I plan on filling them out, with "Example title", "User:Example1", etc. from now until doomsday. Best to catch any mistakes now, rather than on doomsday! Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• The order on the newsroom page can be changed at will (apart from "From the editors", which should come first). The script itself does not look at the newsroom page itself, but rather finds the draft articles by looking for subpages of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/. The publisher (Chris) then chooses which pages are to be published, and can adjust the order in which they appear. So the order that is used on the newsroom page just communicates to the publisher what the order should be.
• No issues with adding a new one. The only issue with a change is that the "previous issue" and "next issue" links won't be added to the footer of the article in the footer (issue dates in {{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end}} template), but that's a relatively minor issue, and would not be a problem for the publication script (and it could be manually fixed by creating a redirect). Both "From the editor" and "From the editors" have been used in past issues.
• Removing an article wouldn't be a problem, but it should probably either be moved to userspace (without leaving a redirect behind) or deleted so it doesn't appear as a potential article for the script, and so the newsroom can be properly reset after publication. - Evad37 [talk] 11:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Scheduled to publish in one week Wednesday 31 July

! Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Smallbones and Bluerasberry: the deadlines that are shown in the newsroom, which are from Template:Signpost/Deadline, are different than the deadlines which are shown in draft articles, which are from Template:Signpost draft. Which deadlines are correct? --Pine (✉) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Writing deadline 30 July 11:59 UTC, publishing the next day. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: OK, there seems to be something wrong with Template:Signpost draft. It's pulling the dates from Template:Signpost/Deadline but the wrong dates are showing. When you get time after publication can you ask one of the template gurus to fix the problem with the templates? I don't have time to look into it further at the moment. Thanks! --Pine (✉) 02:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

News from the WMF

News from the WMF has English errors, including subject/verb error in the first sentence. Should these be corrected? Or left as it was originally published? I'll go ahead and fix non-substantive issues like double spaced paragraphs and quote style. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Good catch - I made 2 corrections. Go ahead and make any similar corrections that are needed. I'm going to concentrate on getting the pic to look more like the original. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we do the fair use image of Alice Frey? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri and Smallbones:. When I was E-in-C I would have disallowed publication of this WMF promotional piece by Jmorgan (WMF). When I created this column it was not intended to be a substitute for their blog which they discontinued and replaced with a pompous self-agrandising one-way web site. In view of the present climate, a lot of Wikipediands are sick and tired of th WMF hegemony over the efforts of the volunteer force whose work generates the donations that pay the staff salaries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones actually approached me and said they planned to re-publish the post. If you're going to say rude things about me in future, don't bother pinging me when you do. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Protecting the cabals

Not moving us towards publication
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If a nut takes you to ArbCom and the case is univocally and rapidly rejected, your pseudonym will lead the Signpost ArbCom report with the Pravda-esque title: "Arbcom forges ahead". [14] If, on the other hand, professional journalists report on your political battling, the EiC will be sure to keep your pseudonym out of the Signpost, because if someone happens to notice that the articles weren't covered at all, the EiC will control every letter of what gets printed about the matter once the story is finally covered. [15] <-- feel free to explain these changes which did not seek to mention the pseudonyms (which you made clear would not be done) but simply added the article author's names and the content of their articles. ps: how is that story on Minassian Media coming along? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC) You were accused of "demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality" and "continuing same exact behavior as in previous blocks: Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem". [16] Arbcom rejected it as premature and refereed the case to ANI. And here you are, demonstrating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please read our article on the Law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Will everybody be ready?

@DannyS712, Bluerasberry, and Pythoncoder: . Just checking if everything will be submitted by tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: um, I probably will have like 15 minutes to work on this, but am pretty busy in real life and so much of my edits are via my phone, which doesn't permit writing Signpost article. So sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I saw you mark the arbitration report as ready - it isn't. If you scroll down, there are a bunch of bare links, and it isn't even up to date with Liz or Beeblebrox. I may have some time tomorrow to write, but either way IT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE CURRENT STATE - if needed just remove the links. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I find the report better with the links as a sort of summary, even without further explanatory notes, as compared to nothing at all. I guess the EinC will have to make a call on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Just links would be okay, but the links haven't been updated, nor do they all work (some were archived). I only have a few minutes, so I'm really sorry I can't fix it myself --DannyS712 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bri and DannyS712: If Bri can fix the links, I'll go with that. Otherwise should I remove the links starting with "Cases" or "People"? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think they are fixed now. Mostly just archive path. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Will have it 100% on Tuesday night ET, guaranteed. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Mine is ready. Good to be back. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Can we move User:Bri/Signpost draft to Special report? I believe I can wrap it up in the morning Pacific Time. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report is ready. It's written to the current graphic, though I understand Widefox is creating a new one. We can tweak the writeup if a new chart is done in time. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Should have a publishable version of "Recent research" in the morning Pacific Time too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• All my content will be submitted by 9am EST 31 July. I regret submitting at the deadline without leaving time for copyediting but this is where I am. I am doing "news and notes" and joining anyone in the "research review". Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm running a bit late with "Recent research" myself. Bluerasberry, do you still plan to submit the piece there that we discussed with Smallbones earlier? I would plan to have RR ready for publication (including copyedits) before 9am EST 31 July already, but could set aside some time afterwards to look at your contribution too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RR is publishable now if need be, although some more copyediting couldn't hurt. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Would like 14:00 UTC, 10am EST, 2.5 hours from now, one hour more than I expected for research review. News and notes is there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

done done done with my submissions, I will do some copyediting in whatever is left... Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I copyedited the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view. Seems cool! Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The RR one looks fine to me, I made one edit. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Realworld day, so I'll create now with a new name, giving the option to switch if and when desired. Widefox; talk 23:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Widefox: per email, I'd like to be sure you're comfortable with the article, and will publish it if you are. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I need some sleep, but I see publication in about 9 hours if everything works perfectly. 12 hours if it doesn't. Some real world problems for me after that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Yes I'm comfortable with the article. The total and active data are now plotted as requested, so ready for switching the main graph but I think adding a second graph may be better.

Widefox; talk 09:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll check back during the next 4 hours and then decide whats's ready to go. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ready to go

@Chris troutman: all ready to publish. I'm not sure I've removed "Tips and Tricks" correctly, but in any case it shouldn't be published. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'll start combing through to see everything is correct and start publishing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July published

I confirm the July issue is out, watchlist notice requested, etc. I'll be home in a few hours and will then send the listserv email and tweet. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Croatian Wiki

GregorB the editors here would be more able to help you with your report. If you have a draft, providing a wikilink to it would be great! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been busy lately so my draft is not 100% complete. I'll finish it and post a link here by Sunday. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the draft: "The curious case of Croatian Wikipedia". (Note I'm taking a wikibreak so I may not respond immediately to comments.) GregorB (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions for the Editor-in-Chief's review ☆ Bri (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

circular file?

To editor Bri: You just one-click archived a bunch of content to this red link. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Done--it is really in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 30 and I added a null edit to note that fact ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody!

Everything is published without any horror stories following. I'm very glad the publishing process went smoothly. My copyediting could have been better. All in all a good issue.

One request. How many people are going to Stockholm for Wikimania? In depth articles coming out of Wikimania will probably have to wait for official proclamations and videos to be released, which likely means that full coverage will have to wait until the end of September. But I'd think if we could get 3 Wikipedians who'd like to write a brief "impressions" article or a couple of paragraphs that could be combined into one article, that would be something we could do well. Also if they teamed up to cover the 3 most important speeches (opening, Jimbo or Katherine, closing) we could have another good article. If you or somebody you know would be interested, we can coordinate that here.

Thanks again.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to Wikimania, and I will cover some stories there. Smallbones, I apologize, but I am not ready to commit in the way you describe. I will get some stories and seek to recruit some writers. At this time I am unable to commit to cover anything in particular. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Understood. I think we might all ask around about who is going and could do some of the above. I certainly will ask. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be there too, like Lane though I probably won't be able to contribute in this form.

But how about a Signpost meetup (also as a meet & greet for readers who would like to get to know members of the team and possibly become involved)?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Lots happening now

There is a lot happening. Wikimania is only the half of it. Please excuse me for not organizing anything there, but perhaps we can pick up a story or two. See User talk:Jimbo Wales for much of the rest, mostly involving planning and suggestions for change involving diversity. There should definitely be something in Discussion on this. Also the FDC seems to have been closed down - I certainly never noticed. Perhaps I'll ask @Risker: or other former members of the committee about this. Ryan Merkley has been appointed Chief-of-staff to the WMF CEO [17] , which sounds pretty big to me. I'll seek a short interview with him. There's probably more. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In re Ryan Merkley, I happened upon two items:

• There is a cottage industry out there devoted to promoting open/free knowledge that some of us (well, me) never knew existed. Might be worth an article.
• This blog post, which is kind of disturbing. CC responded here. I don't know anything more about the story, if it is a one-time incident, if it reveals something about the man, or if there is nothing there. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My takeaways:

• Workplace sexual harrassment can be directed by men or women, at men or women, or both simultaneously
• Corporate HR exists to protect the corp, not the individuals employed there (surprise–not; see [18][19][20])

It is a fraught area and one that everyone involved in this space should be aware of, for their own protection and protection of those around them. That said, I'm not sure how this item about harassment would fit into The Signpost's coverage which is usually focused at our own community. @Llywrch: are you proposing more coverage about harassment in the wider open knowledge community? Would you be willing to take that on as a research and writing project? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that we're hearing all the good stuff about Merkley, but nothing bad. No one lacks skeletons in the closet -- not even me. I came across this bit of news from one of those unmentionable websites that criticize Wikipedia late last night, & my first read was that Merkley was the unnamed person in the blog post. (Re-reading this I see that it was not him. I gotta take more care about understanding what I read.) It's something that is out there, & bound to come up. Whether or not the Signpost -- or anyone -- makes anything about this story really isn't my call. (In my own path thru corporate America, I've my share a lot of similar stories of sexual harassment that management handled poorly. To repeat myself, this may be an isolated incident, or just one of many Merkley was connected to.) But I am sharing this link as background information: in case something similar to this happens involving Merkley -- or the blogger.

But as for a research/writing project, I'd be more interested in digging into other open/free knowledge groups, & maybe doing a profile if there is enough there. We Wikipedians in the trenches are too busy writing an encyclopedia to learn about that cottage industry, & other allies/alternatives to the WMF. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My concern is how much we are paying him out of our hard-earned , free content generated donations. I'm sure Guy Macon would like to chime in here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung, nobody is more ready to criticise the WMF's mission bloat than me, but in light of recent events I'm not going to criticise them for apparently coming to the conclusion that if the person nominally in charge is going to be on a permanent round-the-world vacation, they damn well need to get someone with actual management experience into that office rather than allowing the individual teams to make policy up as they go along with minimal oversight. Whether this guy is the right guy is another matter (without context it's impossible to say whether the incident linked by llywrch is a one-off aberration, a disgruntled employee making stuff up, or a sign of a genuine issue), but the principle of having someone on the ground for the buck to stop at is sound. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent. For those new to this topic who might be asking themselves why people keep mentioning Guy Macon when it comes to WMF finances, please read my (just updated this week!) essay at WP:CANCER. That being said, while I am very much concerned with the overall financial picture, in my considered opinion it is a mistake to focus on individual spending items like hiring Merkley, having Wikimanias, etc. I do think that some things (like how much each Wikimania costs or how much we spent on furniture last year and what we got for our money in each case) should be transparent and not hidden, but financial transparency and deciding whether we should have spent money on X, Y, or Z are different issues. I do remember reading You Pay to Read Research You Fund. That's Ludicrous and wishing that the WMF could hire the author. For those who do want to focus on individual spending items I suspect there are better targets for our scrutiny. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You're both absolutely right of course. Iridescent's comment is spot on and was already in the back of my mind whent I made the post above. On the other hand Guy, one year of his salary would probably pay for all the scholarships for a Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone ever revealed the actual full cost to the donors of any Wikimania? I seem to remember someone promising a full accounting of one a few year back but never heard anything else about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, what each Wikimania up to 2014 cost is here. It will obviously vary depending on the venue (presumably Stockholm was crazy expensive and Bangkok will be dirt-cheap for venue hire) but assume a ballpark figure of $400,000–500,000 from the WMF budget, minus whatever they can bullshit a donor into providing a grant for. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Having Merkley working at the Foundation could be a good thing. But there was a time when I thought hiring a journalist from the CBC was a good thing because she understood the issues of creating & publishing information; however, once at the Foundation she was surrounded by programmers & sysadmins who argued that beefing up the technology of the projects was a priority & since the unpaid volunteers who wrote the content that attracted the eyeballs could take care of themselves, she favored the technology people. And I thought hiring this lawyer who made a famous observation about conversations would also be a good hire, providing insightful advice about sharing information on the Internet to volunteers who knew very little about the law, but once in his job he limited his concerns to the Foundation's direct needs & ignored the people who wrote the content that attracted the eyeballs. In short, once money is brought into any non-profit effort it changes things, often towards promoting self-interest; having a secure paycheck has that effect on people. And just not if they are US citizens. -- llywrch (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points, but presumably someone from creative commons understands copyright and maybe even attribution. Not things that the foundation is in the habit of getting right. The 2019 strategy includies a proposal to host NC and ND in order to give indigenous communities control over misappropriation, with a 170 year old photo as an example. Having someone at the WMF who should understand how little control over "improper" reuse you get by claiming a copyright on a 170 year old photo might be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was way out on my estimate that one year of a top staff salary would probably pay for all the scholarships for a Wikimania indeed, it would pay for the entire event! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could tally up how much good the executive did in a year vs, how much good the Wikimania accomplished? Too hard to quantify, of course, but it is interesting to think about. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania, as it is structured and organised, is actually superfluous. It's a WMF event masquerading as a community event. A very significant number of the attendees are staff on a junket, and salaried staff of the wealthier chapters. Most of the presentations are boring staffers telling everyone how good they are, the routine speeches are the same every year, and the whole thing is preaching to the converted and telling them they should do even more for free. The event should have a much greater participation by schlorashippers, with more focus on workshops and structured discussions that are not facilitated by the WMF, (don't I ever get tired of typing those three letters?) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Next issue, August 30 copy deadline

The next issue is beginning to shape up. The summertime blahs had me worried for a while, but this is just a gentle reminder for folks that we should be ready in a week's time.

• I will be doing a "Video review" of the material available on YouTube and Commons from Wikimania. It will be in the format of a book review, or a movie review, but should include a short paragraph or more on each of a dozen presentations.
• If anybody else has material on Wikimania that they want to include, please let me know.
• In the media should be fine.
• In Discussion or News and notes, I'd love to see items on
  • Ryan Markley's appointment as Chief of Staff to the ED
  • The disappearance of the Funds Dissemination Committee (AKA "FDC" See Jimbo's talk page)
  • The rather bizarre discussions in the strategy process recommendations
  • If anybody wants a short paragraph on any of these, except the last, please just ask me.
• In Arbitration notes, the Fram case (so far) should be covered, but I'll stay strictly away from it. @Bri: would you be in charge of the *editing* part of it?

• Yes, I will edit once it is created. Who is writing? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• There are about 3 newsworthy items for "From the WMF" and I fairly arbitrarily chose the new Wikipedian of the year. If anybody has another preference, we can discuss that. The others might be good for News and notes.
• Anybody have an idea for the Gallery article? The best I can come up with is from the WMF blog - Ed has been picking individual photos to highlight for about 6 weeks now. Collecting them in one place might work.
• I've approved the opinion piece on the Croatian Wikipedia. I was hesitant as this has been a long-running incident that pops up in many places, but it looks to be well-written and fairly moderate. I'll ask that others vigorously copyedit it to remove any snide remarks, etc. that would distract from the main point. When somebody is very close to such a contentious issue, it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot this way. Other comments welcomed on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• I would like to publish 1-3 small stories on either small outcomes of Wikimania or topics of regional interest. I could do copyediting or support on anyone else's attempts to cover the top-level stories. I am not yet sure what I will do. These notes are semi-private and please no one take them seriously or as indication of anyone else's thoughts or activities. I do not think there is anything personal here but I have a lot of notes. Here is my notebook for the conference and the source from which I will draw.
  • Lane's personal private notebook

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Op-Ed piece

I have a short Op-Ed for an upcoming issue, if you are interested. If not, that is okay. (here) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Hawkeye7. Moved to Signpost Submission Desk, "Wikipedia and Australian gag order concerning George Pell". You are welcome to modify or expand the description of your item, there. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

These could go in News&notes if you'd like

I finally got a statement from the WMF on the FDC: "The FDC's role is currently under review as FDC members, the board and staff await the Movement Strategy outcomes and recommendations, particularly as they relate to Resource Allocation. For FY19/20, the APG-FDC grant amounts and process remain the same as last year: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/2018-19_Annual_Plan/Temporary_changes_to_grants_programs. The Board will review the FDC's role once Movement Strategy outcomes and recommendations are ready."

That's not really news, but somebody should actually publish this someplace other than making people piece this together from Jimbo's talk page. I don't have enough for a full article, so the only place I see it is in N&N, but will take suggestions for other places.

Also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus gives the "news" that Ryan Merkley has been appointed Chief of Staff. I'll probably beef it up to cover his achievements as CEO at CC so it will at least make it to "short article" length, but it could be cut down for N&N use. I do like that we have a long quote where he directly addresses the editing community.

OK, I think the In Focus article on Merkley is long enough.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Dog days of summer? Upcoming holiday? Wikimania hangover?

I'm starting to get nervous again, as I don't see a lot of activity around here. Just pinging randomly @DannyS712, Bluerasberry, Pythoncoder, Bri, and HaeB:. Is anybody covering the Arbitration report? Please let me know whether you'll be making the deadline - or if you won't be. We do have a couple of pretty good opinion pieces this month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm not going to get a chance to DannyS712 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am shocked every month by my horrible procrastination. Why do I hit the deadline every time? I will get something in about Wikimania by tomorrow Thursday 29 August noon EST. Also unrelated we have a 10-year anniversary to commemorate. I am fairly sure that it was in August 2009 when Wikipedia projects finished the transition that the text would all be available under a Creative Commons license per meta:Licensing update. I think I can summarize that in a brief and link out to the historic discussions and more recent updates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am out of time, past time. I will get some very short notes here and there. I will be done with whatever I can do in about 3 hours. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing from me, not possible for afew days Dog days, Wikimania, whatever else. I apologize. I am unable to contribute to this month's Signpost. My biggest regret is not communicating and taking action earlier. This is the best information I have at this time. I want to contribute to the next issue. If I contributed at all it would have to be after next Wednesday. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Will be available at a reduced output ... call it heat-induced fatigue. Right now I'm taking a look at the Commity View piece and will have some feedback on terms. I understood your comment about editing the Arb. Report to mean you wanted just editing, not authoring, so I'm standing by for a copy to review. Bri.public (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Should have a publishable version of RR by the writing deadline in two hours, although three of the promised contributions haven't materialized yet and may become late additions. (In general, as always, please assume that I am aware of the deadline as soon as I have posted the customary newsroom notice, but may not have time to write up intermittent updates here while Masssly and I are coordinating with the invited RR contributors in other channels.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Community view – terms related to China

Can we get some editorial clarity on how certain terms relating to China should be handled in upcoming Community view?

• China
• Mainland China
• Chinese government

They seem to be a bit mixed up in the copy as it stands now.

Additionally, 毅進制 is untranslated, perhaps Yijinecimal ought to be created for ENWP, but we probably need Diploma yijin (zh:毅進文憑) as well, to explain the joke root of the phrase. - Bri.public (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had some trouble copyediting this and invited Tony in as well.

I don't often edit articles about China so may have made some mistakes. But I take

• China as a general term, certainly including mainland China, but Hong Kong as well
• mainland China (fairly informal) excludes Hong Kong and other special areas
• Chinese government - used only once in the article to emphasize the connection with the Chinese Communist Party, but using "Beijing" in it's place

Feel free to suggest a more rigorous system. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to make things more exciting, there's another issue. We also have potential mass confusion over the following:

• Wikimedia Taiwan - chapter recognized since 2007
• Wikimedia Hong Kong - WMF recognized 2008, de-recognized 2017
• Wikimedia User Group China - WMF recognized user group since 2014
• Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong - user group, recognized 2018
• Wikimedians in Mainland China - "working group" - unclear status

Note, the article links to meta:Wikimedians in Mainland China, which does not exist. Should we create a scoreboard sidebar or something for readers? - Bri.public (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

News and notes

re: News & notes, I don't think we have anybody to write it, so I may write 3 one line entries for it

• FDC
• Ryan Merkley
• Arb com schedule on Fram case (nice and simple)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

How about that WMF "staff harmonization" off-site in Tunisia? See Jimbo's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

15 year hoax in mainspace

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Warsaw concentration camp: Giant gas chamber in road tunnel killing hundreds of thousands. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

With one day to go before the copy deadline, I don't think we can get it in this month. Icewhiz - do you think you could write it up for next month? It could be a straight factual story, or if you'd like, fact + opinion, where I assume the opinion would be something about how this calls into question the accuracy of all Wikipedia articles (well that might be exaggerating a bit). You're half-way there with the write-up at the fringe theory notice board, but more facts and details please. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent story, but I'd fix things like "Supporters of "Polocaust" resent the attention the Holocaust receives which is per their view exaggerated by Jews" which is currently stated in Wikipedia's voice. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

FR/N was a board post - not a story (and needs work). Polocaust is actually attributed/quoted to London Review of Books. Looks a bit tight for this issue. I can do it next month. The mechanics on other language wikis is also interesting (and I've been digging / doing cross-wiki work here) - e.g. translations from English (not always attributed), the German wiki (being OK early), the Polish wiki being in full blow conspiracy mode (including diagrams of the alleged giant gas chamber) - until someone cleaned and it was then taken to GA on the Polish.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz I'd love to see it in the next issue (given what I know so far). The easiest way to submit it is just to write it up on a user page which then can be linked to a formal submission at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. The formal submission is only needed so that I don't forget about it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Word limit? Can I use pics (there are quite a few conspiracy (and real) photos on commons)? Also - can I use a table with cross-wiki links to old versions (I want to do a Polish/German/English wiki timeline) ? Icewhiz (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Say 500-1000 words (more will lose you readers, so shorter is better). That said, take as much space as you need - I'll let you know if you really don't need it. 5 of so pix shouldn't be a problem assuming they are freely-licensed. I'm guessing a table as you describe it may lose you readers, but I'd have to see it first. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ready to publish in 7.5 hours?

@Chris troutman: , I'd love to publish about 0:00 UTC today, i.e. in about 7.5 hours, but I need to:

• write something for news and notes (incorporating the discussion report item). It'll probably be about 5 "in brief" items so it should be pretty quick. But this may not be possible.
• spend 2-3 hours off-wiki on an unrelated matter.
• check the formatting so I'm sure the publishing script will work
• do my final rounds to make sure nobody has changed anything in the meantime

BTW, the research report looks great this month.

If we publish then, I should be able to get out of town for the holiday weekend with my family.

Happy holiday/end of summer/start of school to all who mark them at this time of year.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I checked off copyedit on the recent research section. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Also checked off News and notes copyedit ☆ Bri (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing DR right now. Sorry for the delays. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Will be done before 23:00 ET / 3:00 GMT. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: I've uncancelled DR. Please go ahead with it. I've done all of my task noted above except check the format for publication. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I've done all the above, except I'll wait 10 more minutes to do the final check on Discussion Review.

I did check the formatting for publication and was surprised to see that 3 articles didn't have the correct end of article templates:

<!--END OF ARTICLE --> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2}} {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-end-v2}} <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-comments-end||2019-07-31|}}</noinclude>

The 3 were Opinion, Traffic report, and Recent research

• at opinion they were just all removed (might have been me removing "draft helper")
• at Traffic report there was a ":" after Template instead of "s/" (no idea)
• at Recent research there was originally "Next issue" instead of the date "2019-07-31|" (no idea where this comes from.)

The only thing tricky I tried in formatting this issue was linking to other Signpost articles with the date "2019-08-31" instead of "next issue" (which would break once published)

bake in 10 minutes with the final go ahead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks for catching those end formatting issues. I'll need to write up a better checklist so stuff like that doesn't get overlooked. I'll start perusing the pieces and wait for your final go order. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Let's do it! As ready as it will ever be - ready to publish! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question. We didn't cover any arbitration proceedings this issue? That's such an obvious gap in our coverage... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer we'll have gaps from time to time. This is a volunteer community. Next time, feel free to contribute. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: If anyone reached out to me (I'm on the Editorial Board), I could have taken on someone else's column if so needed. No one told me we were swamped or anything, so I assumed my help wasn't needed and could focus on other projects.
Arbcom is about to have four open cases before it, and we didn't even write a blurb about it. Since I'm the filing party for one of them, it'd be unethical for me to write that story though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I fully understand the time constraints of the regular editors of The Signpost, but If you are on the editorial board, surely you would have noticed that a regular column had not been prepared before the magazine was published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I suppose that is correct, but I forgot to do a check within the last week. I guess I am mostly just kicking myself for not noticing it sooner. Yours is a fair point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Archives

Unless I'm missing something, the archive for the 2019 Issue 6, June, is missing here . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thanks for pointing that out; I have since fixed it. June was one of the manual-publishing months and I missed the archive step amongst the whole process. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Next issue - Wikimania 2019 coverage

I expect we can do more stories about Wikimania. If anyone has things they want to present post them here to collect content, probably for a multi-section review.

• meta:Coolest Tool Award

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Image galleries for September 2019

I tried to set up an article profiling recently available media collections.

• User:Bluerasberry/September 2019 gallery

I have to work on this more but wanted to show off the draft now as we are a week from publishing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lane thanks for putting this together. Is it OK if I move it to Signpost draft space so we get it on the roster of started articles? BTW not sure how much time I'll have to contribute this week, due to IRL commitments. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: assuming you didn't see my note above, and will move the Gallery soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes thanks move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery ☆ Bri (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Two submissions

@Smallbones: I made two submissions, on the KLW conspiracy theory and on handling racism. Please review both - the latter is in its second revision, and hasn't been reviewed by anyone.

Thanks! François Robere (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere and Icewhiz: the first article looks very good, based on a quick reading, and will likely be in this next issue. I'm a bit confused on the authorship and should get this straight. Email me if needed. The second article needs some work, but I don't see any reason it could not be improved and published next month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz started the work some time ago; he handed it over to me, and I made (and am still making) changes.

What would you suggest improving in the second? François Robere (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Still not sure I get it

I live in the United States and know little about this subject of European history. You remark the stories "are not entirely implausible in the eyes of a lay reader" - can you more quickly, more directly, and in simple language identify the misinformation? I know it disrupts the flow of journalism but the Signpost reaches a general audience who is often not aware of such topics. If you put the point of the article immediately at the top then that increases understanding of the rest.

I am imagining an introduction like, "Since 1970 troublemakers have developed a totally bunk conspiracy theory that ???. The social context of this conspiracy theory is to obscure discussion of ???. Wikipedia has an article on ???, which spreads this conspiracy theory. According to the experts XYZ, this information is hostile false propaganda with no legitimacy. This article examines how this information came to be in Wikipedia and how the Wikipedia community has responded to it". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Writing deadline for this month

@Smallbones: I am likely to finish next week's WMYHTW on the 29th, so I request that you wait until I mark "On the bright side" as being ready for copyediting before moving ahead with publication. Unless something unexpected happens I will have "On the bright side" done before the end of the 29th UTC. ↠Pine (✉) 06:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: Sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: Bri must have missed this note and went ahead and copy edited it. If there's a problem, I'll suggest reverting it to the pre-copyedit state and we'll do it again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I did miss it, sorry. If you have to revert, I can probably redo the edits very easily. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Will have "Recent research" ready in publishable form by midnight UTC (two planned contributions are still missing and I hope they will come in after noon UTC, but in any case we should have enough content). Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Megalibrarygirl, Bri, and Smallbones: "On the bright side" is now ready for copyediting. I am fine with anyone copyediting when I haven't been editing the page within the past hour or more, but please don't mark the piece as "Ready-for-copyedit" or "Copyedit-done" until after I mark it as "Ready-for-copyedit". Otherwise there might be a problem with Bri or Smallbones moving ahead with publication when I haven't finished writing the content, and/or you might be editing the piece while I am actively writing it. Thank you very much for the assistance with copyediting. ↠Pine (✉) 00:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: I understand, we'll try to do better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: I'm sorry. I'm confused. You don't want me to mark it copyedit done when I finish copyediting? I apologize for my confusion! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Megalibrarygirl, let me try to explain. I write "On the bright side" in increments of approximately one week each. I appreciate anyone copyediting the piece when I am not actively working on it within approximately the past hour. However, please don't mark it as "Ready-for-copyedit" or "Copyedit-done" until I mark it as "Ready-for-copyedit" at the end of the month, when there will be no more weekly increments added to the piece. After that, if someone copyedits the whole piece or any portion of the piece that they haven't already copyedited earlier in the month, then that person may mark the whole piece as "Copyedit-done". Does that make sense? ↠Pine (✉) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, Pine! So I did it correctly this time since you'd marked it ready for copyedit. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Expected publication Monday 30th 16:00 UTC(!?)

That looks good for me, with 8 articles total, and a long way to go.

Sorry I haven't kept in touch much. I've been very distracted by a couple of things both on- and off-wiki. Almost nothing is done yet, but I've got 60 free hours before the above deadline (when the shit hits the fan for me off-wiki). Please join in if you can!

A couple of things: Fram's RfA has finished with him withdrawing. There's material that should be covered on Fram from ArbCom and the RfA stuff that would normally be in "Discussions". Could anybody combine those and do a straight news story on it? @Bri: (I won't be coy) you did a great job on the straight news story when Framban 1st came out - can you do the same for this month?

I intend to do a "From the editor" on a related topic "Where do we go from here?" which will be an opinion piece but mostly not my opinion. The idea is that , other than a short 2 paragraph intro, we can forget about Fram for the time being and concentrate on the general issues Framban raised. For me these are

• what can we do about harassment?
• how to give the accused a viable defense without continuing to harass the accuser? and
• how does Wikipedia work with, not against, the WMF on preventing harassment?

Of course we'll give all the answers in 500 words or less - NOT! But I think what I can do is get the opinions of several trusted editors and get the conversation started.

I've already got the opinions of a few (send me names of who might be best) but they haven't quite got the idea that we should forget about the specifics of the Fram case for the time being to get the real discussion started.

Other: @Bluerasberry: Is the headline on the gallery what we really want? It reminds me of the headlines I come up with for traffic report. Anybody else should feel free to take a try for the headline of either of these articles.

Thanks for any help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Gallery

Link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery

Anyone can change the headline. I have no preference. I am going to try to get more time for some submission tomorrow. I find myself at the deadline again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pine: I think copyediting on Gallery is done but had trouble parsing "• Seemingly 2013 set but recently migrated into Commons". No idea what this is about. If there's time, you might want to rework that bullet. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bri, the Gallery piece for September's Signpost issue is Bluerasberry's, not mine. ↠Pine (✉) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Pine, I transposed the two pieces with many fine pictures ☆ Bri (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Framgate wrapup

Link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report

Oof, I will try to do a decent writeup. Unfortunately, I had not been following the RFA. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Under construction at User:Bri/Fram RFA story. I'm not sure what section this is intended for. Part of Discussion report, or q standalone article, or ...? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's short and sweet – I'm not sure there's a ton more to be done with this without going into opinion-ish analysis. Anybody want to give me feedback now? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a stand alone article now and probably shouldn't be. Three possible ways forward:

• Combine it with a write up on the Fram Arbcom case, maybe with some background of earlier events, and publish it as straight news. Maybe in News & notes or a Special report
• Put it as the lede article in discussion report, would need other discussions added of course
  • and then put a write-up of the Fram arbcom case together with other arbcom cases in the arbcom report. I wouldn't get too deep into the ins and outs of the Fram arbcom case - people might get very dizzy. I can probably do all the non-Fram stuff in discussion report and arbcom report if you don't have the time. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Related articles

Archive 6

Post-Framgate wrap-up
30 September 2019

Where do we go from here?
30 September 2019

New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban
31 July 2019

A month of reintegration
31 July 2019

A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia
30 June 2019

More articles

Post-Framgate wrap-up 30 September 2019 Where do we go from here? 30 September 2019 New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban 31 July 2019 A month of reintegration 31 July 2019 A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia 30 June 2019

I was wrong; there was more to do. But it's been expanded: User:Bri/Fram RFA story. There are now several subsections, which doesn't make it impossible to merge with News and notes, but maybe standalone would be better? I'll create a special report page but it can be merged back in to something else, if you think it's best. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report, ready for other editors to do their thing ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have edit fatigue, can somebody close out the intro? You are welcome to co-authorship if you think it is merited. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Bri: For the top of the Special Report, I'll suggest one of those previous coverage boxes, but I haven't understood how to make one. Search the archives for "Paid editing" to see an example. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean the template WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Paid editing that I just added here ... will get on making WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Framgate is a new one for Framgate. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Libraries

Link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus

@Bri: we had a potentially nasty edit conflict at the Libraries article. I saved everything I thought was important. You can choose the photo and make any other changes you want. I'll stay away. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Done editing and I'll mark this copyedited momentarily. Is there a read-only link for the "comprehensive notes" at the very end? I'm not sure we should publish a link to edit the document. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll look. And Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Suppressed edit summary at Frams RFA

Fram has withdrawn and the withdrawal diff has been suppressed. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but prefer not to edit articles directly about Fram. Maybe there is something on his talk page. @Pythoncoder: if there is anything to add to the Special report, could you do it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like 64 edits were suppressed and then readded to get rid of one edit summary where somebody must have called another editor something ungentlemanly. Nothing else was removed AFAIK. @Primefac: the oversighter, is there anything we're missing here? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This sort of explains it. I added a brief note to the Special report to explain why the diff doesn't work. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's be generous with thanks

We as The Signpost's core team – if you're reading this, you're in it, surprise – want to develop a process that doesn't just publish a newsletter but also builds a motivated team of people who are dedicated to getting The Signpost out on a continuing basis. Hoping to start some discussion about how to do this here.

I've been awarding barnstars intermittently. Is there anything else that can be done?

Going forward, I think we should be conscientious to thank the contributors, especially the new ones. Thinking outside the box, especially if we can get grants to fund some small thank-yous, here are some tchotchkes that might be motivational:

• T-shirts
• Award coins (maybe to be distributed by E-in-C)
• "I'm an editor" plaque
• Signpost business cards

Maybe this is too corporate-fueled, but I've seen stuff like this go a long way before.

Other than this, it wouldn't help to get some metrics on how we're doing – something to brag about and feel good about, like number of readers touched, and so forth. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite Smallbones and Bri's valiant efforts to keep The Signpost going, it has become more of a newsletter - at least the 'magazine' style which I introduced has disappeared. I notice this for example in the very short lines in things like In the Media and News & Notes, and the loss of some of the other regular columns from users who were driven away. My tenure may have been occasionally controversial but we did have something approaching compelling reading. A lot of the readership interest can be measured by the number of reader comments the columns generate. I fully appreciate that much depends on how much time one can spend contributing to it - and I'm well placed to know. There are different reasons why people write in or for The Signpost. Some are dedicated to keeping it going as an essential organ for our English Wikipedia, which after all is the WMF's flagship project. Others, kind of WP:SPA, want to air an opinion or just write a rant, while some possibly just want to see their name in the byline to stroke their egos. The newspaper has been trying for years to drum up more interest in contributing, but at the end of the day it just doesn't work. I would still do a lot for it, but I wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

After this issue is wrapped, I'm going to do a brain dump – maybe more spleen than brain – that addresses my own concerns about the future of a community news organ. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

To potential censors

There's been a bad habit lately of people coming in and making last minute changes who have previously had nothing to do with the article. We're on deadline right now. We are not making mainspace articles here. This is a Wikiproject and our goal is to produce journalism by the usual journalist practices. And you have no right to interfere with our usual writing practices. We do not accept censorship, period. Back off and let us publish. You can do your usual nonsense with ANI and MfD after publication and we'll be there to discuss it. For now - let us publish. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There are principles of journalism I think are probably more important than your rather unexpected "1st rule of journalism - the editor decides what to publish".[21] Principles like accuracy and fairness in reporting. This is a wiki and people are going to want to help out when they see things that can be made more accurate. If you don't like the wiki model, why are you publishing this here at all instead of somewhere else? And if you don't like my attempts to improve the text, why don't you at least materially discuss what you don't like about them? For example, to me it looks misleading to say that Fram nominated himself for adminship since the nomination went live with no self-nomination statement and five nominations from other editors. Is there some cogent reason to stick to the self-nomination framing which you reverted back to? Haukur (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please let us publish without interference. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is extremely unethical to publish something that has been pointed out to you as wrong. It is the first responsibility of the editor to tell the story correctly. If you need more time to get it right, extend the deadline. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the content dispute here, and do agree that the Signpost should aspire to high journalistic quality, including factual accuracy. But in Smallbones' defense (speaking from ample past experience, as probably the regular Signpost contributor with the longest experience - almost a decade - and previous editor-in-chief myself):

It is a cornerstone of the Signpost's publication process, and has been fundamental to its success and durability as an online newspaper since 2005, that issues are published at a certain time - i.e. declared as complete by the editor-in-chief, and subsequently distributed to readers via several channels. This is indeed a bit different from the normal wiki model that all of us are used to here from our article work. A news publication simply isn't compatible with eventualism, or with demands that complete consensus has to be achieved before publication. Certainly this temporary authority granted to the editor-in-chief in order to run a successful news publication has to come with accountability, and I do think it's a good idea to at least respond to concerns about alleged factual mistakes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever practice The Signpost might have followed, it's not policy. All pages are governed by WP:CONSENSUS not WP:OWNERSHIP, and Signpost editors are no exception. It is extremely inappropriate for Smallbones to be editing a story in which they are involved: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Signpost articles are not mainspace articles. The Signpost is a Wikiproject and governed by the rules for Wikiprojects. They are very similar to the rules for talk pages. To be part of this project is very easy, just start contributing according to our rules. The main idea is that people volunteer to submit draft articles according to our rules. Once submitted the draft is reviewed by several people, and then, once approved by the EIC is published. Now think about somebody going to somebody else's talk page and editing that person's comments without permission. Pretty rude, right? Now think of editing somebody else's comment even before they are published. That's just obstructionism, or more directly censorship.

Now please read the very top of the box on top of the draft article. "This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by Smallbones, the editor-in-chief." Please follow our rules. There are dozens of ways to contribute to the Signpost, but edit-warring on deadline is not one of them. A writer can't concentrate and finish an article if one of the subjects of the article' is changing the copy. That's what happened here and it is more than obnoxious - it's simple censorship. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters whether or not Signpost is mainspace. The very first paragraph of WP:OWNERSHIP states: All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Who made Smallbones king of anything? I thought WikiProjects were non-hierarchical groups, not individuals.

Wikipedia:WikiProject states: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."

WP:PRJC states:

Pages within the "Project namespace" themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. These administrative pages are intended for use by editors or by automated tools for the organization and governance of the encyclopedia. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform to the same content protocols or style conventions as articles. These pages, as with all pages, do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's conduct and legal policies. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:List of policies#Conduct links to WP:OWN and WP:CON.

And finally The Signpost handbook says "Contributors should endeavor to avoid putting out material they know to be wrong or misleading." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No more Monday publications?

I'm not sure why we had a Monday publication schedule set?

I'll suggest never again on Monday.

I do like the end of the month. Maybe on the last Friday, Sat, or Sunday? Suggestions welcome.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm always pleased that we publish monthly. I think we re-ify our place as an institution by meeting the deadline. The end of the month falls where it does. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Having the writing deadline (not necessarily publication deadline) fall on a weekend day - especially Sunday - would make things much easier for me as editor of Recent research, and also for many of our contributors to that section. Agreed with Chris that a predictable and consistent monthly deadline is important, but formalizing it as e.g. "last Sunday of the month" still meets that requirement. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that a *publication deadline* of the last Sunday of the month would be fine. That would mean that the *writing deadline* would be the day before (which is different than the last Saturday of the month). Publishing on the last Sunday would mean that there would be 8 months that there ar exactly 4 weeks (28 days) between publication dates and 4 months where there are exactly 5 weeks (35 days) between publication dates. (8x28 + 4x35) = 364 days (The extra 1 day per year over 52 weeks should only affect Januarys starting on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays?).

The only problems that I could see are the end of December (sometime between Christmas and New Year's Eve) and possibly November when the last Sunday is the one after Thanksgiving. Some people might be traveling long distances on the Sunday after T-giving, but I'd guess we can handle it. I'll always have a conflict at the end of December though (a family members' employer always closes the "factory" for at least 9 days including the last week of the year - so we have a long warm holiday). One possibility is having a "Year in Review" edition, where 80% of the articles can be completely written a couple of weeks ahead of time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

People tend to forget (again) that the en.Wiki is read, contributed to, and maintained by rather a lot of Anglophone people that do not live anywhere near US times zones. What might be Sunday for North Americans can quite easily still be Saturday or even already Monday in some regions. The same goes for traditional holidays which are now (more or less) international such as Xmas and New Year, while Thanksgiving is an exclusively North American affair. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not quite true: Public holidays in Liberia - Bri.public (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that too, and that English is its ligua franca, but it would probably not be realistic to assume that its readership and contributions carry a significant impact on The Signpost's publication day/date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Published, thanks

This edition has been published. Special thanks to @Chris troutman and Bri:. Let's figure out the publishing schedule that satisfies everybody and works without manual resets. I don't particularly mind whatever dates are selected (tho I do have some preferences), as long as I can rearrange my schedule beforehand to fit the publication schedule.

There's an especially important problem that needs to be addressed: censorship on deadline. We cannot have the article subjects or their friends dictating content just before publication. We should listen to what they have to say, but even hastling the reporter on deadline is a major problem. Non-Signposters should realize that the draft articles are *not* final until published - they are drafts. Much more later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As a relatively callous man, I do not understand the rash sensitivity many display. I don't want editors mentioned in our stories or their proxies showing up last minute to threaten drama if we go ahead, nor would I invite those editors to comment lest they believe they hold a veto, especially with the community's overbroad application of NPA. I'd take the latter situation over the former in a pinch.

Unless the EiC wants to chance some more brushes with ARBCOM in order to assert our independence as a periodical, I'd look into moving the publication off-wiki, though that would be really unfortunate. On an unrelated note, publishing the last weekend of a month sounds good to me. Publishing at the end of the workday isn't too bad but the mornings are usually tight. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not ready for a full brain-dump on this topic yet, but I think you and I are thinking along the same lines. I created an account on Wikimedia Space (https://space.wmflabs.org) and plan to see if it would be a suitable platform. My only criteria are that it be as easy to edit as this software; and that back-and-forth links look natural, i.e. not blatant external links, but more like the light blue links into Wikimedia projects. Bri.public (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bri.public and Chris troutman: I changed Chris's note about into 2 paragraphs, as the note strikes me as 2 very different subjects, which I'll likely answer individually. I do think we should ask editors who are not happy with a draft article to comment here (this page, not in the article) if they think something is wrong in the 24 hours before deadline. But I do not recommend that they even read the draft - simply because it is a draft that might be changed and that (even though they may not realize it) they are hassling the reporter and making it much more difficult to come up with an accurate article.

Moving to meta or elsewhere in the wiki sites sounds attractive on the surface (e.g. we could cover ArbCom without being regualted by them), but I don't think the potential to be hassled/censored goes down. The same editors could do the same stuff unless we had some sort of acknowledgement from meta admins that censoring The Signpost would not be allowed. And ArbCom could still regulate what we do on en:WP. This isn't that different than the way big city papers relate to local government. Reporters aren't allowed to jaywalk no matter what, and the city provides police and other services. Not entirely independent for sure, but close enough for a lot of places in the real world. I hadn't thought of Wiki Space though. I'd guess their rules are still being developed and ...?

But I'd much prefer staying right here where we always have been. (Believe it or not) I do think we came through the most recent brouhaha pretty well in some ways and in the long run I think it will increase our support from the community. Not that the last word has been said about the brouhaha but this (especially the 1st paragraph) pretty much caps the case in my book. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, what on-wiki mechanism would prevent this from happening? It seems to me we are straddling "encyclopedia article" and "quasi-noticeboard" and getting the worst of both. I'm kind of done with the pre-publication canvassing, insults, and proactive threats of Arbcom. No contributor should have to work in a fear-filled environment. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure exactly but admins and arbs have lots of power here. One fairly obvious case would involve banned or blocked editors. I don't think I could publish an article by a banned editor without getting banned myself - even if everything was written off-en:Wiki. And, of course, if there was an alleged PA published both myself and the author could get banned on en:Wiki. They could also make publishing or distribution difficult. I assume by "proactive threats of Arbcom" you mean "proactive or prepublication threats of being taken to Arbcom or ANI." I haven't seen Arbcom itself make such a threat, but your example is the type of thing we want to avoid. I was just looking at Wiki Space, and it does look like they have some appropriate tools there to avoid prepublication censorship, we might even have an archive over there, but as soon as we have any contact with en:Wiki postpublication censorship is a threat. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

[A]dmins … have lots of power here doesn't fill me with warm fuzzies when all four interlocutors I referred to are current (3) or former (1) admins. Here's the meat of the issue IMO: we need a clear go-ahead to discuss admin activities without fear of reprisal. - Bri.public (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the only way is to build up enough support from the community. And (believe it or not) I think we've done some of that over the last 3 months. Half the editors in the RfA more or less agreed with the deleted Signpost article. Jimbo made a very straightforward and concise statement of the facts of the case. A year from now, people will look back and say, "The Signpost wasn't allowed to discuss whether an admin accused of harassment actually committed harassment - That's just crazy!" The Wikimedia Space tools look good for avoiding prepublication censorship and harassment. The only way to avoid retaliation is to build up the community support IMHO. (off-Wiki for a few hours) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, we've always had "a clear go-ahead to discuss" WMF missteps from the community. I think people will see that if it doesn't also work that way for admins and arbcom, that we'd really just be a biased, unreliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• The idea of hosting The Signpost off-Wiki is nothing new. I suggested it to Bri well over a year ago and it may even have been hinted on by others in my pre-Signpost days. Keeping the wraps on the content by preparing its articles off-Wiki until the last minute was also mentioned. I fully sympathise with Bri's "I'm kind of done with the pre-publication canvassing, insults, and proactive threats of Arbcom. No contributor should have to work in a fear-filled environment", and pre- and post-publication censorship of the periodical should be proscribed. The Signpost is not a Wikipedia mainspace and should not have to kowtow to such restrictions. Furthermore, as in any traditional newspaper or blog, the editorial board could be selective with the reader comments - not necessarily in order for it to maintain any agenda of its own, but more to prevent trolls and anti-admin regulars from constatly using the space for their personal rants and attacking the editorial staff and other users. The Signpost needs to establish itself as a quality, Wiki-independent newspaper, that can be trusted and that can publish justifiably contentious colums. It is under no obligation to be neutral but what it must avoid however, is being relegated to the murky backwaters of the Wikipedia hate sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Commenters getting on my case about seemingly trivial matters is what makes me ask, is it worth it to keep writing this? It’s a lot of work for not much appreciation. Does the community want this newspaper or not? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I am clearly disappointed that pythoncoder feels his questions need to be posed. It's not 'do we need the newspaper?', what we should be asking is 'how can we get more people interested in contributing to it at a time when the community has pissed off many of the people who spent hours every month to get it off the ground in time?' But with the current climate caused by detractors, it's hardly surprising that everyone is scared to write anything other than the uncontroversial niceties provided by users like Pine and Bluerasberry. I do not like the pages of The Signpost being padded out by articles pasted from the WMF. Our newspaper is absolutely not their mouthpiece - out of the funds our free work generates, they have already squandered coffers of the cash on the various expensive iterations of their own off-Wiki website over the last year or so, most of which is nothing more that sheer promotional navel gazing. What needs to be said of the WMF should come in the form of regular reportage in The Signpost's own words, which would permit justifiable and acceptable scrutiny of what they get up to on our money - especially their corporate life-style and jet-hopping junkets, and how their incompetence causes havoc and dozens of admins and bureaucrats to walk out in disgust over the constitutional crisis the Foundation caused and blatantly refused to do anything about until they and their high-flying boss were put under pressure by our legion of serfs. The C staff have accepted their positions with all the prominent publicity and conjecture it produces; they are handsomely paid for it and they should either grow a thicker skin and learn to take criticism as much as any Trump or Johnson, or get out.

Your question has been asked of the community before and the answer was a resounding yes - but l'll add - with reserve - probably less so in its current format. During my tenure as E-in-C, readership was grown, the number of columns was increased, and the style moved far more towards a 'magazine' rather than a bland newsletter of short snippets; some 'slightly' controversial journalism generated some justifiable reader comment but there were no calls for articles to be censored or taken down. The main issue as I see it was the anti-admin brigade and former SP editors coming out of the woodwork to attack those who were doing their level best to produce something worth reading and having some compelling content. Like Chris troutman: I do not understand the rash sensitivity many display, and I fully concur with Bri's No contributor should have to work in a fear-filled environment.

As I've said recently, running the periodical is however a massive time sink especially if a so-called editorial 'board' of just two or three editors are expected to create most of the content. I admire Smallbones for having shouldered the responsibility of deciding what should be published every month, and I certainly commend Bri for his contributions and extraordinary staying power. Now is not the moment to express despondency and give up on The Signpost; now is exactly the time to carry its full potential clout, get the volunteers united, strive for better management of the WikiMedia projects of which our en.Wiki is the flagship. The editorial 'board' should continue to reject user submissions that are little more than thinly veiled PA about our admins and Arbcom who for the most part actually do an excellent job within the constraints of the tools and responsibility vested in them - we can leave that kind of crap for the trolls who inhabit WO.

Here's something for your next In The Media column. It could be the lead article, but rather than interfere or want my name in by-line, I'll leave you to expand it: China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits is the title of an in-depth news article on 5 October by BBC reporter Carl Miller. Bear in mind that most if the CNN and Fox-bred North Americans don't realise that the BBC is the world's largest single - and unbiased - source of news and if it has something of this extent to say about Wikipedia, it should be a knee-jerk to us all, and also, by-the-by, an example of excellent journalism.

I am one who is certainly 'ready for a full brain-dump' on anything that concerns the future of The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Kudpung I will respond with points.
  • Yes The Signpost is great
  • Yes it should cover controversial issues, and yes we have access to a flood of story leads which we all know gets high readership from the Wikimedia community which responds with intense activity to news stories
  • Yes the newspaper defaults to bland niceties in the absence of a labor pool especially including a stabilizing administration
  • Personally, I think The Signpost should have paid administration. "Administration" excludes the editor and creative writing. Bri and I have drafted funding requests to the WMF for The Signpost in the past. If that administration existed, then the boring parts of publication would be eliminated, and I think many more community volunteers would submit stories.
  • I cannot say anything about the future but personally since March 2018 I have been employed as Wikimedian in Residence at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia. I have some modest budget to hire my own part time staff and I have a job posting published as of last week to hire a journalist whom I want to assist with The Signpost. This is not a promise but it is my aspiration to bring some stability into the boring and routine parts of managing the newspaper so that contributing to this newspaper is a creative activity removed from its current administrative burden and idiosyncratic learning curve. I am not sharing this information because I have a solution, but only to communicate that for months I have been negotiating at my university for money specifically for Wikipedia-based journalism and documentation for the public interest.
  • Yes, as Kudpung says, a specialty and focus of The Signpost should be the reporting, interpretation, visualization, and solicitation of opinion on the Wikimedia community budget. The Wikimedia Foundation collects money from the public from donations. In the past there was an agreement and understanding that all of the money, resources, and assets of the Wikimedia movement belonged to the Wikimedia community to be governed by the Wikimedia community. The Wikimedia Foundation has always been distinct from the Wikimedia community, but over recent years it has repeatedly enacted policy to make itself increasingly distinct and distant from the community, and has asserted new claims of ownership over all money which it collects in the name and interest of the Wikimedia community. The Signpost is an essential venue for negotiating the community interest with regard to this money which belongs to the Wikimedia community and its right to self governance.

There are limits to what I can do. I contribute content regularly to The Signpost because I want it stable enough to be ready to grow from the resource infusion which I hope and imagine will come to it in the future. As more time passes the need for the this newspaper grows and I am here because I believe that The Signpost already is and will greatly increase in importance as a communication channel for Wikimedia views and consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, the only problem I see with getting funds from the WMF to help the running of The Signpost or providing off-Wiki hosting on a WikiMedia server is that they would insist that the newspaper be run on their terms - which is exactly what we want to avoid right now at a time when due to WMF incompetency we are striving for more independence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion The Signpost should not be on Wikimedia Space because of the degree of control that WMF has over that site, WMF's willingness to make surprising and unilateral decisions, The Signpost's role of providing semi-independent journalistic coverage of WMF's actions, and WMF's conduct policies for Space which, while well-intentioned, are incompatible with the degree of frankness that is appropriate in The Signpost and which are outside of the community's control. I think that Space may have a good use case for groups that want to have private conversations on a WMF-hosted platform when the groups that want to have those conversations are okay with WMF's degree of control and WMF's policies for those discussions in Space, but I would not go there with The Signpost, and I would not even publish issues of The Signpost there because of the risk that WMF would censor them and/or sanction the authors for violating a policy that WMF established or enforces for Space. ↠Pine (✉) 23:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Pine. Having read the T&C at Space, there is obviously the risk that the WMF moderator(s) would censor articles of the kind The Signpost occasionally publishes. There are other alternatives for creating and hosting a CMS site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Adminship and paid editing

Paid editing is a central issue at a current RfA. This might make an interesting addition to the upcoming News and Notes where we cover such things. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Other possible stories

Ronan Farrow has a new book coming out Oct 15. All I know is from the Hollywood Reporter [22] "Farrow asserts that NBC used other methods to sanitize and neutralize reporting about Lauer's behavior, including employing a Wikipedia whitewasher to 'unbraid references to Oppenheim, Weinstein and Lauer' after the allegations became public." There's almost enough info in that sentence to start searching for unbraiding edits.

I'm not going to buy the book just to (possibly) get a two paragraph story for ItM, but it could be a lot more. If anybody is interested in non-consensual sex, media, and paid editing you might keep an eye on the story or even buy the book. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"The Unblockables" no more?

I've started a draft about Arbcom's indeffing Eric Corbett. Should it go in Arbitration report or elsewhere? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Arb report looks as good a place as any. It doesn't look like much of a discussion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sysop and re-sysop process discussion

I'll add this to the discussion report, unless there's a better place for it?

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure

Cheers -- Bri.public (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oversight irregularities and resignation

FYI to newsroom: expect more about Oversight officeholder/s at the Arbitration report [23] ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk: Bri#Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report

In the section "'Potential misuse' of oversight precedes resignation", you write that "Just prior to the resignation, a self-requested oversight audit was completed by the Arbitration Committee with the comments A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed and We thank [DeltaQuad] for her diligence in self-reporting the potential misuse ...". This heavily implies that the Committee itself reached a consensus that "that the suppression should be reversed". However, this is not the case. The Committee's announcement states: We note that after the suppression in question was queried, DeltaQuad initiated a discussion on the oversight mailing list. A consensus was reached that the suppression should be reversed, to which DeltaQuad agreed. In other words, the participants at the oversight mailing list reached a consensus that suppression should have been reversed, not the Committee itself.

Also, I hope that you will note that this is a fairly normal occurrence. The oversight policy states that Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing [non-public] information (emphasis added). Revisions can be easily unsuppressed on review, but oversighters cannot by pressing buttons force other users to un-see suppressable non-public information. When an oversighter suppresses revisions where reasonable people could disagree, therefore, and that suppression is later reversed, it does not generally constitute an abuse of the tools unless it was unreasonable to begin with. In this case, the Committee evidently agreed that DeltaQuad's actions did not approach anything close to misuse or abuse of the tool, explicitly writing that The committee is satisfied that this resolved the matter and that DeltaQuad acted in good faith in accordance with the oversight policy. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Kevin thanks for the feedback. We're less than a week from publishing but there's time to take this into account. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin: the partial quote reads to me as a distortion of our actual motion (which I wrote). It's a short motion – is it not possible to quote it in full?

Also, a correction on the timeline: DQ requested the audit four days before she resigned her tools, but it was completed after the resignation. I don't know why DQ decided to retire and relinquish her bits, but logically it can't have been a response to our audit. Unless you know something I don't, it seems overly speculative to imply a connection between the two incidents at all. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel comfortable making the connection especially since DQ already gave a timeline on her talkpage pointing to the inciting incident. It's obvious there weren't any other controversial events at the same time. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Have changed the wording especially to reflect an accurate timeline of events. Further editing is possible as I've asked DQ to give us a statement on her retirement. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

News from the WMF

Curiouser and curiouser: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/author/dan-fost/ - is this person a WMF employee or not? First off, the page is not the WMF 'blog', they deprecated their blog a year or more ago in preference for a web page that no one can comment on. So why is he writing for the WMF? Freelance editor maybe, but possibly not 'free'. I've already expressed my dissatisfaction in the way The Signpost offers a free platform for the WMF just to pad out the content of our magazine, but of course that's a decision of the editorial 'board;', Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Deadline approaching for this month

Hi Smallbones and Bri, the end of the month is coming soon, and a quick glance at the Newsroom suggests that there will need to be some more writing and/or some pruning of articles in the next few days if The Signpost is to publish on time. I'll be done with my section tonight or tomorrow. Regards, ↠Pine (✉) 03:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

Apologies if you receive this notification twice. There seems to be a bug with the Echo tool. ↠Pine (✉) 03:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of work left to do, but I expect to publish on time with a good issue. All copyeditors stand by for action. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've done as much as I think I will for the issue ... it's been stressful due to some behind the scenes stuff. Have fun, everybody. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, Bri, and Pine: Publication time probably 15-40 hours from now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ok. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: whenever you're ready. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Ok, starting now. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

@Bri and Evad37: thanks for identifying and fixing the mobile problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

October issue is published

I pressed the button and am now finishing up. Hopefully I won't discover hiccups. I'll finish the Twitter and mailing list tonight. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Chris troutman and Indy beetle:, Tilman and several others who didn't wish to be named. It looks good so far. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a mail list issue reported by Pine at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The countdown publication counter needs to be reset to November ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Last month we had a discussion about the timer. IIRC we decided that the publication date would be 23:59 on the last Friday of the month. I'm ok with that for November 29, the day after Thanksgiving, but the copy deadline would have to be the 27th. I'm ok for publication deadline of December 27, copy deadline December 26 as well. Who sets the clocks? Or better yet, how do I set the clocks? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You should be able to click the "E" in the timer box and twiddle the dates/times. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorta done. I wanted to set the copy deadline for Nov 27 - the day before Thanksgiving - and the only way I could do that was to set the publishing deadline to Nov. 28 (Thanksgiving). But I don't want to publish on Thanksgiving, I'll likely have too many things going on that day. So publication date will always be the last Friday of the month (with extremely rare exceptions, e.g. if it falls on New Years Eve - which it doesn't this year) @Chris troutman:. I'll just set the timer from now on for the copy deadline and the publication date will always be the last Friday of the month, unless you hear from me well ahead of time. I like deadlines, and will rarely miss one (I know, in October I did) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Any idea what this is about?

[24] Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get the joke, either. All I know is Mallu is a nickname (I hope not a slur) for Malayali people. -- Bri.public (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)