This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RfC: Should Signpost Articles on Open ArbCom Cases be NPOV?
Latest comment: 1 year ago103 comments44 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THE POLICY
There is obviously no consensus to make any change in the policies on the Signpost. Vanjagenije(talk) 09:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please comment on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be NPOV, or whether one-sided opinion pieces are fine? The general question is sparked from the controversy around this Signpost article, much of which can be seen at its talk page. In particular, see the WP:ANI thread here, which was opened on the basis that the article "prejudges an active Arbitration case", suggested that the review prior to publication was "the most ever for any Signpost piece" and was left up roughly on the basis that "it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost".
So in an attempt to avoid similar chaos next time this happens, please provide your view on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be written in an NPOV manner, or whether a one-sided opinion piece is fine. Ideally without commenting on the specifics of this one current ArbCom case.
Clarification: Use of the term "NPOV" is intended as shorthand for "neutral point of view". It is not intended to refer to our article editing policy WP:NPOV. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/AboutThe Signpost does not specifically maintain a commitment to neutrality in the same way that Wikipedia articles do, but the magazine is nonetheless known, and aims to serve, as a balanced and impartial news source. So no, one-sided opinion pieces are not at all fine. Anyone is (within reasonable limits as established elsewhere) entitled to express an opinion regarding upcoming ArbCom cases. Handing the Signpost megaphone to one individual is however entirely incompatible with 'balance' and 'impartiality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how you would have an actual opinion piece that is impartial. Impartiality means that it does not reflect your own opinion. So, just ban opinion pieces from The Signpost? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I saw but did not participate in all the hoopla on this and my own feeling, based only on general principles, was that Signpost shouldn't have involved itself at all because of the open Arbcom case. Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Signpost should be neutral, and avoid appearing to be wikilawyering. ArbCom cases are difficult for all involved, including the Arbitration Committee. Pick any case you've participated in, or just scanned through. Tempers flare, accusations are made, and it can evolve into something vindictive after the case is closed. We elected the ArbCom committee to handle that difficult process. Signpost should not be a venue for one or more individuals to go around ArcCom and plead the case. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we might get a bad decision on the back of this case, which was rather extreme and rather poorly handled. I think we should condemn the situation we saw here, but requiring the Signpost to toe the party line on Arbcom seems like it could be a problem in future.Also, @Volunteer Marek: and @Piotrus: should absolutely get a right-of-reply before any such standards are put in place. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 15:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I was unaware of this article and its controversy, but I fully agree with AndyTheGrump. From the point at which a case has been requested to the point at which it has concluded, i.e. the request has been declined, an accepted case has been closed or the complaint resolved by motion (with or without a case being opened), the Signpost must do its best to maintain impartiality regarding that case. There are no shortage of venues where involved editors can vent their opinions, The Signpost is not one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I also believe strongly that, when commenting on such matters, Signpost must be neutral. When I first read the article in question I assumed it would have been intended to be neutral, given the sensitive nature of the topic. When I realized it was a one-sided POV piece I felt my trust in Signpost disappear. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it will help to consider another, simpler example of the Signpost entering into commenting on an open Arbcom case. I happen to know about one because the Signpost reporting about the Arbcom case against me in 2013 was part of a long and excruciating personal experience in my own Wikipedia life. I am now looking at Signpost reporting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-14/Arbitration report. With perspective of 10 years(!), I will try to comment a bit now.
The comments from back then, which I think are perhaps the most relevant now, are in sequence in this diff:
"It is not particularly appealing to have the signpost judge (even a part of) an ArbCom case before it has even been heard. It is also questionable whether it should report some of the more hyperbolic statements cited by parties, third hand. Two layers of selection bias is quite enough. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
I have to agree with this comment - I don't know anything about the case myself here, but reporting it like this (with quotes from the people bringing the case and none from Doncram himself) seems like a bad idea. The Signpost should probably restrict itself to saying 'a new ArbCom case has been opened', and allow those who want to know more to click the link and read it, rather than producing a summary vulnerable to partisan bias. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the two above. The article left me with a bad taste in my mouth. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013"
I recall experiencing the Signpost coverage as awful, as something like betrayal, in that the Signpost should have been objective and NPOV-like, or it should should have been sticking up for the underdog and victim in the case, which was me. You don't have to accept that exactly, but it was specifically unfair and awful in ways that I could now argue better, starting with its subjective naming as being a case about me (which I disputed back then but, if space allowed, could argue better now)....which several Arbcom members naively argued would not affect their views, ignorantly and incorrectly disregarding selection bias that would affect who would and did come to give their opinions in the case). Another way it was unfair was that it put me on trial without representation (there is not a Wikipedia-recognized right for such, but as a matter of human decency there should be)...I knew all along during the slow-motion Arbcom experience that I was not coming across great. I was totally unprepared and basically unable to participate constructively in my own defense... I knew that I needed representation...I decided back then that I was totally willing to pay $10,000 for legal/PR representation (a huge amount for me, but what I was willing to budget given how personally significant/intrusive the Arbcom case was going to be, and how important to myself I perceived my participation in Wikipedia to have been), but there was no way to secure any such. About the Signpost coverage, I perceive(d) there was newsworthiness, some reason for Signpost to observe this was going on, but the Signpost plunged wrong in taking up one side, unfairly. I did appreciate those comments which I quote. I may add a bit more, but reconsidering this is painful even now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
A week later there was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report, to which I responded. With 10 years of perspective, right now I actually view the Signpost report as likely being somewhat interesting and relevant to potential readers, and fairly objective/balanced. My responses there which objected to the coverage, though, seem to me to be also valid back then and relevant now, including how I started "I don't think this coverage is professional or useful. Probably no coverage is what I would prefer, for any ongoing mediation or arbitration case." In my response I mentioned having seen the previous "clearing" (which was discussion about the drafted, not-yet-live Signpost article) and perceiving that my comments in that were essentially ignored. Looking at that "clearing" now, I am pretty shocked. I feel now like I had not been personally notified (but this bot notification had informed me "On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team" and falsely promised that Signpost would be providing coverage "in a non-partisan manner" and that my concerns, if any, "will be read by a member of the editorial team." (I say that was false because there was in fact no response by the editorial team to concerns I stated...maybe the Signpost should not let a bot make promises for it.) Because of that notification and/or because I might have recent contributions by the principal opponents to me in the Arbcom case, I arrived and saw the drafted Signpost article. I see that the two principal opponents to me in the Arbcom had been busy tailoring the Signpost coverage for their advantage and had achieved what they wanted, with two responses from the Signpost writer(s), and they thanked the writer(s) for having adopted their suggestions. What I said then can be seen in this diff. I asked: "Is this a live article? I was notified of this article-in-progress. When does the article go live? I haven't yet posted much in the case." I specifically objected to one thing "The Ellen-of-roads quote is presented as a condemnation, when phrasing before and after the quoted text is left out that changes the meaning significantly. It is misleading as presented." There was no response, except for one person chiding me (I don't know if they were Signpost staff or not) with "Please take this to the arbitration page, this isn't the place for this discussion. (X! · talk) · @953 · 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) And then the "clearing" was blanked to make way for discussion of the published Signpost piece. Looking at this now, I am pretty horrified about the Signpost's unfair treatment. I am re-experiencing it as pretty awful betrayal. (I will now notify the four editors I have just quoted). Again, you don't have to agree with me that I was entirely a victim in the Arbcom case (but the upshot of it was that one of the two principal opponents was desyssoped and banned from interaction with me, and both basically lost interest in editing in the NRHP area once they did not have me to harrass. I returned to the NRHP area a few years later and have contributed mightily, while they disappeared.). But it looks to me that I was absolutely a victim in the Signpost coverage, and I dunno which emotion to go with right now... sadness, disappointment, outrage...shame (about the Signpost's role, given that I feel I have supported and generally identify with the Signpost, and/or that I have not myself done more in the 10 years since to take action within/about the Signpost's coverage of arbcom affairs). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC) --00:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I see now that I did receive one "official" response from the Signpost. In my responding to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Arbitration report, I stated that the Signpost had garbled its coverage of one issue, and that "I didn't comment within this article's "clearing"; I feel my comments in the last Signpost's similar clearing didn't have useful effect" and that in my opinion "The Signpost coverage should not be open to editing by arbitration participants, including me. The Signpost coverage should not take a stance either way." The official response, which was from the editor who wrote all the arbitration coverage during that perioed, in its entirety was: "Please do not treat your personal opinion as fact. James (T • C) • 9:50pm • 10:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)" Which is infuriating to me as I read it now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No. The Signpost's editorial policy should be left to the Signpost's editorial team. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the editorial choices the team made here; I would have to dig into the situation more to be able to judge those. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No. What the OP links to as a "Signpost article" is not a news article. Signpost writes news articles about arbitration proceedings in its regular arbcom notes section. Those should be written neutrally in a straight news style. However, the piece linked in the OP isn't a news article or even in the arbcom notes section. It's a review. Reviews are not neutral, nor should they be. It's not a review of an arbcom case, it's a review of a paper. That the paper is also the subject of an arbcom case is not the Signpost's problem, or the reviewers problem. Of course reviews should give the opinion of the reviewer. That's the whole point of a review. Nobody did anything wrong by publishing a review even if some editors disagree with the review. The week prior, Signpost published another opinion piece about the same paper, that was also not neutral, and that's fine too. Ultimately, I'd like to see the Signpost draw clearer lines between news and opinion in its reporting, but the research review section is clearly opinion. And NPOV applies to mainspace articles, not to the Signpost. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Note that this editor is a party to the ArbCom case in question, and wrote 12 comments under the Signpost article in question in directional support of its particular POV. The prior "In the media" piece, was descriptive and did not provide any views in wikivoice. Perhaps Levivich could consider whether he would have reacted differently had the only Signpost reviewer's opinion been strongly opposed to his POV, like in the example given by Doncram above from many years ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Also pinging @Ajpolino and Schierbecker: since this probably should have been disclosed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
My God, 12?! I would have reacted the same. Levivich (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to see the Signpost draw clearer lines between news and opinion in its reporting Definitely. That's a common problem, and the Signpost should lead the way. DFlhb (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
No, per Levivich. Also I trust our arbitrators can manage to focus on active cases without being unduly influenced by articles in the Signpost. That is, after all, why we pay them the big bucks. Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: This would have been a better RfC if the question had been phrased as "must" rather than "should". Already we have at least one answer that says "should" without "must" and creating a coherent policy from the responses will be difficult. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No, per Levivich. Schierbecker (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Two problems with this RfC: First, and least importantly, NPOV is about representing sources neutrally, not refusing to take a side. Second, that Signpost review doesn't take a side on an arbcom case. It's a review of a paper and the response to it. It does take a side as to some things that happened on-wiki which were covered in that paper, but not about an arbcom case. That an arbcom case also emerged from that paper doesn't mean the paper becomes off limits for the Signpost. Should the Signpost take sides on editorial disputes covered in papers? Perhaps in exceptional cases only? But that's not what this RfC is asking, so what I think about it doesn't matter. I agree that the Signpost shouldn't take sides in an ongoing arbcom case, but again, that's not what happened. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No. NPOV applies to mainspace articles, not The Signpost. It does not attempt to maintain NPOV: for instance, it is biased against things that put Wikipedia's existence in jeopardy and celebrates its successes. A mainspace article about Wikipedia shouldn't present Wikipedia's existence as good or bad. The Signpost can run however its editorial board decide (subject to core policies/guidelines that do apply, like BLP), and the community can choose to emphasise or de-emphasise its prominence in internal pages (such as the watchlist notices) according to consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No. I personally did not think it was a wise idea to publish the piece, but we should avoid instruction WP:CREEP or inflating the potential harm/damage from a (arguably) poorly written/pov piece in a non-mainspace article. Let Signpost maintain its editorial independence and accept the feedback that has been eloquently expressed. I know the Signpost editors are open to publishing rebuttal pieces as well as reflecting on how not to make ARBCOM more stressfull than it already is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment: The issue is not an Arbcom case or an NPOV concern. The issue is that this was a venue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS against specific editors in a way that:
Granted an elevated platform to cast aspersions with a wider audience compared to a talk page
Exempted those involved from conduct policies, which apparently don't apply to the Signpost for some reason
Created plausible deniability as those involved can just fall back on "it's a review piece" despite the clear targeting of specific editors
This is made especially clear by the objections raised prior to publication. This is evidence that the Signpost needs reform in regard to how it interacts with policies, and I think that the editors that wrote and published this should be given a formal warning for inappropriately casting aspersions and attempting to WP:GAME the system. If we make this about an Arbcom case, then we're not addressing the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
An WP:ASPERSION is an unevidenced accusation. An accusation with evidence that isn't convincing is not an aspersion. A review that reviews someone else's evidenced accusation is not an aspersion, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with the accusation. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
If it suits you, you can replace "aspersions" with "personal attacks". The problem is the way that it was done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Please quote one line in that Signpost review that constitutes a personal attack. Keep in mind that WP:NPA#WHATIS says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Accusations about personal behavior that have evidence are not personal attacks. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you're nitpicking terms rather than addressing the point I'm trying to make. If an editor wants to make a case about a conduct issue, then they're expected to do so in a certain way. As it says at WP:ASPERSION: If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. The Signpost is neither of those. I don't care if they have video evidence of editor misconduct; the Signpost is not an appropriate place to repeat such accusations. In addition to circumventing WP:ASPERSION and WP:DR, it creates an immediate power imbalance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no accusation made by the author of the Signpost review article. (If I'm wrong, quote what you're talking about.) A reviewer reviewing an accusation made by someone else is not a personal attack, or harassment, or anything like that, not even close. Not by the letter of our policies, and not in their spirit, either. Someone writes in a journal criticizing Wikipedia, and a reviewer reviews that journal paper, the reviewer is not thereby also criticizing Wikipedia. Even if the journal article has a PA (which it doesn't, it has a criticism, which is not the same as a PA), the reviewer is not committing a PA by talking about it. It's a review of a paper. That's not an "end run" around our policies. It's nonsensical to think this way. It would prevent us from reviewing papers about Wikipedia if those papers are critical of Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Levivich, I think that the concept of "personal attack" might not be the relevant one. We have a narrow idea of what constitutes a personal attack, largely meaning direct name-calling for an identifiable individual. But what we call a personal attack is not exactly the same thing as what makes people feel attacked, and I think it's the latter point that is relevant.
One of the interesting points in Civility is that some modern English speakers believe it means behaviors that look superficially nice (bless your heart), but historically it referred to behaviors that built up civilizations (Golden Rule). You can look superficially nice and still make someone feel hurt, excluded, or belittled. You can look superficially nice and still destroy communities. One of the questions here might be: Even if it's "legal" for The Signpost to amplify one POV of an open dispute, is that ultimately a behavior that builds up our community or that hurts us? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the Signpost piece was poorly handled. I would like to think that the editorial team has taken on board the criticism that the review generated but I haven't seen a single response from them that wasn't *really* defensive. Disclosure: I was added to the case as a party after the Signpost article. Yeah, I know several of the other parties from the war in Ukraine articles, and yes I have opinions about them. This is however irrelevant to my point here. The Signpost review started from the assumption that Grabowski's article was entirely factual. That was erroneous and morally wrong. It's completely against any ethical code of journalism I have ever encountered. Yet if it is to ever regain any pretention to objectivity (not that in my opinion it has even that at the moment) then Wikipedia cannot get involved in legislating what it can cover. However, safe harbor only applies if it acts in accordance with the reasonable man rule after problems are brought to its attention. Wikipedia shouldn't regulate it, but I also don't think it should host it either. If it wants to be Wikipediasucks or Wikipediocracy then let find another webhost. Elinruby (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
No. NPOV is about pages in article space, which the SignPost is not. The linked article is a review of a scholarly paper on Wikipedia, which in the abstract, is a reasonable thing for the Signpost to cover, and which will intrinsically be at least somewhat subjective. I see that the linked article includes links and summaries of the responses to the paper which is probably the bare minimum required not to run afoul of WP:BLP. That being said, I think the summary of their responses is sub-par, not even mentioning IceWhiz, which was central to both of their replies. However, that's an editorial issue, not a NPOV issue. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost is essentially a WikiProject, which is to say it's a group of editors sharing a common interest collaborating together to support Wikipedia, usually through some initiatives. Most WikiProjects are focused on articles related to a specific area. Some groups of editors implement processes. Some groups of editors try to fill gaps in processes. Editors collaborating on the Signpost are interested in one method of building community ties: delivering news items and commentary on a regular basis. Whether or not the community chooses to read the results is up to each user. I don't think the community is well-served by singling out one type of external item upon which the Signpost shouldn't comment. If the community feels there is a problem with the quality of commentary, I think it should first seek to remove the Signpost notices from the watchlist, as Bilorv suggests. The Signpost is only influential amongst those who are interested in letting it influence them, which is the same as for any editor who writes commentary, be it on a talk page, a Wikipedia-space page, a user-space page, or elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
No The Signpost is journalism. Sometimes journalism exposes unpleasant realities. Sometimes journalism is done poorly. The Signpost is internal journalism, sure, but who are we to demand editorial compliance with some vague party line? From an Arb's perspective, it would in fact be bad to stifle the free exchange of ideas and information around a case. Further, if the Signposters wants to criticize ArbCom, that is their irrefutable right, and I fear any sort of rule like this would be used to clamp down on dissent. TLDR: press freedom good. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Re The Signpost is journalism: Is it though. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Your contribution to this discussion is truly high quality. EpicPupper (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so is yours. I did put some thought into mine though: there is a very good argument to be made that it's actually a company newsletter, which would likely as not in fact contain tripe. If that's what it is, then fine, carry on, but let's not have any tears for the First Amendment. Elinruby (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Signpost articles should absolutely be required to be neutral when commenting on ArbCom cases. The Signpost is a WP project, and certainly has an appearance of representing Wikipedia, (whether or not that is "officially" the case). The Signpost should not be a platform for editors to post wide-spread, non-neutral opinions about other editors. If a Signpost writer wants to comment on an ArbCom case... go do that at the ArbCom case, just like everyone else. That way, the editors they're commenting about have the opportunity to respond in the same venue, to the same audience. It's not as if they can turn around and write their own Signpost articles, to rebut any opinions posted about them here, that's not what the Signpost is for. I really can't believe this is even a subject for debate. - wolf 00:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes per User:Thewolfchild. Furthermore, unlike real life, where there exists a wide range of newspapers who can provide different POVs and attract different readerships as they may choose - The Signpost is the Wikipedia Newspaper (again, de facto if not de jure) and so carries a certain weight in the Wikipedia community. Therefore it must be very careful to respect the due process of Wikipedia. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost is certainly the best read among Wikipedians, but there are plenty of other places and people who cover Wikipedia in both mainstream outlets and in the blogosphere and social media. Nothing is stopping you from starting your own blog that covers Wikipedia! Legoktm (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
No the idea that an opinion piece prejudges an active Arbitration case seems to be based on real-world media coverage prejudicing real-world trials. However this is because potential jurors may read the media coverage and form an opinion of the case based on it rather than what they hear in the courtroom. ArbCom doesn't have jurors, so this doesn't apply. Nor do I think there's any risk from prejudicing arbitrators, because they are exposed to lots of discussion about the dispute outside the case anyway. Hut 8.5 19:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
This response, and some others, seem to leave it unclear whether a) opinion and analysis identified as such is permissible, in the context of a publication that also includes bare-facts reporting or b) only the bare-facts reporting is permissible. Many RSes include opinion columns, editorials, and such, so did you mean option (A) is OK, in which case, status quo for The Signpost? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
No largely per CaptainEek, who summed it up nicely. My favorite Signpost pieces are those that take a stand, for example, The Athena Project: being bold vs. Wikimedians are rightfully wary or Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month. Many ArbCom cases (like the current ADMINCOND case request) are pretty boring, but the Holocaust in Poland one is pretty crucial to how Wikipedia exists and is perceived by the broader public. We should be taking advantage of the increased attention and focus on the issue to dive deeper into the case through Signpost articles, blog posts, etc., not shying away from it. Legoktm (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
No: NPOV applies to article space and deals with the treatment of sources: Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. (From: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation). It's unclear how this would apply to project space in general and to The Signpost in particular. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I took the use of "NPOV" here to be shorthand for just that: a "neutral point of view". As in when the Signpost is writing about an active ArbCom case and/or the people involved, that they keep their commentary neutral, not that the actual NPOV policy be applied to their commentary. But I could be wrong, so maybe the OP, Onceinawhile, can claify that point? - wolf 03:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that’s right – shorthand for those four words, not our article policy. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Thanks for the quick reply. Just a suggestion, but perhaps adding a brief addendum to your opening post, clarifying your use of "npov", may help others to avoid forming incorrect arguments opposing this RfC based on the assumption that you were literally referring to the policy. (imho) Cheers - wolf 06:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
If this RfC is just about a non-specific "neutral point of view", then there's no policy or guideline about it, and NPOV becomes unenforceable. One person's "neutral commentary" is another's "blatant taking of sides". So my response to this RfC is still a No. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes - Signpost articles should strive to remain neutral on open Arbcom cases and case requests. Arbcom case itself is already a very stressful affair for the involved parties, adding non-neutral opinion pieces in the only "media" wikipedia has on top of it is simply not productive nor needed. If someone really urgently wants to opine on the topic, then that's exactly what actual Arbcom case pages are there for.--Staberinde (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes Some countries have very strict laws against commenting on cases that are being treated in the legal courts; you can be fined for doing so, because it is seen as an "outside" attempt to influence the courts. Other countries do not have such laws; you may comment to your heart's desire. I think we should follow the first set; partly because "Wikipedia-land" is a pretty small country, after all; we don't have millions of voices. An article in the Signpost can/will/may have an undue influence on "the courts" (=Arb.com), (In Signpost articles not about cases at Arb.com/AE etc: I think we can dispence with NPOV), Huldra (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No, along many lines of argument including Levivich, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, and CaptainEek, among others. Clearly marked and attributed editorial should not be restricted---it speaks in the author's voice and no one else's. NPOV applies only to articles. Arbcom members are not a sequestered jury that needs to be protected from dangerous and influential ideas. Signpost is not state-run media, nor is it widely read enough to be a newspaper of record. This RFC is a storm in a teacup. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
No, the Signpost is a safe place to explore different opinions and points of view. Provided there is overall balance - and as has been pointed out, the previous issue contained an article on the same subject from the other side of the argument and nobody complained - and as long as there's a bit of distinction between "actual" news and opinion pieces like this one, then it's all good. Wikipedia is not censored and the Signpost should be even less censored than the rest of the project. WaggersTALK 10:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
No - I agree with others that the question is somewhat malformed, but generally I favor treating the Signpost like a WikiProject, where opinionated communication is both acceptable and, at times, encouraged. The Signpost could more clearly consider demarcating "news" and "opinion", but these research reviews have always clearly been opinion (and it didn't seem in this case like people had any trouble identifying the article as the author's opinion). I agree with User:Waggers that the important thing is potential for "overall balance"; as long as no-one is being shut out of the article request process, I have no concerns. Suriname0 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
No - While Signpost writers and editors all ought to do their best to be fair (and I'd recommend taking the SPJ to heart), there's no reason to force them to not talk about ArbCom cases. To expand on some of the thing said in this discussion, there's also no obvious bright line that would limit such a requirement being only for ArbCom cases. ArbCom cases may be serious, but they're simply a specific type of community-defined process to resolve issues. If they can't talk about active ArbCom cases because it somehow pollutes the ArbCom discussion, then that same argument would apply to ANI cases or RFCs or pretty much any process in which the community is having to make a decision between two or more competing opinions. If people widely think that the Signpost's voice is a proxy for Wikipedia's official position, then the solution is to make that relationship clearer, not weaken its voice. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No - Per Levivich. I have disagreed with a lot of stuff that the Signpost has published in the past, but journalism requires opinion pieces as well as neutral reporting. What I would prefer would be having them put in a disclaimer at the start of any article which is opinion or review; there I expect reliability over neutrality. Ciridae (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No. Although NPOV is policy, it applies to Wikipedia articles and not to signposts. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@ParadaJulio: in the intro, the OP specifically stated: "Use of the term "NPOV" is intended as shorthand for "neutral point of view". It is not intended to refer to our article editing policy WP:NPOV." - fyi - wolf 16:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No, as a former Signpost writer, you've got to follow your gut. It's a brave piece, not one I might have written, but thought provoking, something I think all signpost writers have in the back of their mind. I always tended towards balancing, but there's a line where you can balance bias that you can argue this piece walks along. HidingT 12:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No It should not be held to any stricter standards than usual talk page / user page content. Many people, on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia, might think that the Signpost is Wikipedia’s official voice, but those people are wrong. Many people also think that pronouncements on User talk:Jimbo Wales are official Wikipedia policy; those are wrong in the same way. Sure, the Signpost/Jimbo carry greater moral authority than the rest of us peons (or even than the average admin). Feel free to criticize those "established authorities" when they use their voice unwisely, or to attempt to establish yourself as another authority (on your user talk page, on an off-wp blog, by opening a competitor Wikipedia newspaper...). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A question on policy
I can't find any obvious links to policy and/or guidelines under which Signpost operates. Given the comments above, it might well be concluded that such policy/guidelines need amendment, but doing so would clearly require locating them in the first place. Or does Signpost exist in some policy-free zone where it's actions aren't constrained by anything specific at all, and merely acts the way it does because up to now, nobody has suggested that it needs constraining? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I was more interested in specifics concerning the Signpost. Is there no policy or guideline anywhere that even explains the terms under which it operates? If there aren't, I'd have to suggest that there should be. As it stands, it appears to be under the control of a self-appointed editorial team, who exercise control of content. Something that we wouldn't tolerate in any other Wikipedia context that immediately comes to mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
And where exactly is it laid down that the Signpost editorial team have exclusive control of a subset of the 'Wikipedia:' namespace? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not so laid down, and in the past the community has forced the Signpost to unpublish certain articles by WP:MFD. It is rare, but it has happened. Certain? Signpost Wikipedia editors around such times have discussed taking their ball elsewhere, but as you can see.... Editors working on the Signpost are also expected to observe our behavioral guidelines and policies.
But those qualities make it no different from the average WikiProject. Izno (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem with that though is that 'behavioural guidelines and policies' don't seem to mandate a subgroup of contributors having exclusive control of a megaphone. Which is essentially what we see here. Guidelines and policies are built round consensus, not self-appointed editorial teams. In as much as the community hands over control to individuals, it does so in a regulated manner, after consultation (e.g. with the appointment of admins). That hasn't happened here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
You might want to have a word with the FAC coordinators, GA coordinators, etc. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Possibly I might, if I cared about such things. But meanwhile I'm more concerned with finding out the terms under which a self-appointed editorial team claims exclusive control of a specific particularly prominent [1] page in the 'Wikipedia:' namespace. If (hypothetically) another group of contributors were to decide to appoint themselves as editors instead, would there be any recourse for the existing team to oppose them? As far as I can see, there appears to be nothing that could determine who the 'real editors' were without inventing new policy on the fly. Quite likely an acceptable situation when User:Michael Snow decided back in 2005 that he'd appoint himself editor, but Wikipedia has moved on a great deal since than, and it seems to me that something as important as the Signpost (I assume you see it as important, given the number of posts you've made above) needs formal regulation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem with that though is that 'behavioural guidelines and policies' don't seem to mandate a subgroup of contributors having exclusive control of a megaphone. Like any other WikiProject existing today (because we have ancient precedent on the point), the Signpost accepts any contributors, and I expect that if someone wanted to join the project, they could. I also understand the Signpost, like most of what we do here, works under some basic WP:Consensus model, at least in deciding who is editor-in-chief if nothing else. So, no, they do not have exclusive control of a megaphone.
The megaphone they otherwise do possess remains one that you, or anyone else, can participate in deciding what is said. Though, unless you (general) believe the issues to be so systemic as to need the same actions as that ancient precedent did, you must do so in good faith. For the most part, the rarity with which the community has pushed back on actions taken by those writing the Signpost indicates to me that it is not in such a systemic breach of our basic policies and guidelines and so any necessary regulation can indeed come in the form of the rare RFC or MFD, such as this one. Regarding the specific use of the word megaphone, I think you greatly overestimate the reach of the Signpost and who they claim to be writing these articles on behalf of (as was previously discussed with you at the recent AN(I?) discussion that led to this RFC). I know the writers like to think they're making a change in the wider world, but republication elsewhere is the rare event, so it's almost entirely and only wiki editors who get and care about what the Signpost has to say.
If (hypothetically) another group of contributors were to decide to appoint themselves as editors instead, would there be any recourse for the existing team to oppose them? As far as I can see, there appears to be nothing that could determine who the 'real editors' were without inventing new policy on the fly. I find this line of argument hypothetical, as you admit, and thus not worth discussing. Should it happen, we can have a discussion then. I expect it would be a quick and sordid affair for those who were intending to disrupt the normal operations of the editors who work on the Signpost (you are welcome to be The One to bring balance to the Forcethe Matrix to the Signpost, of course).
You separately seem to imply that there should no longer be some editor-in-chief. I suspect it would go a way to making your case if you were to suggest what might replace such a thing in the context of the Signpost rather than leaving the point half-baked.
Besides all that, maybe you weren't looking for it, but I'd welcome a basic WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Editorial policy. You are welcome to attempt to influence the group to produce such a page, but I return to good faith above. Show that you are interested in helping write the Signpost and then you might accrue the social capital to see something like that for yourself (imposition from outside is largely uncalled for, as I note above), if they do not produce one on their own before then. Izno (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem is though that when it came to contributors "participat[ing] in deciding what is said" in regards to recent controversial content, the majority of those participating appear to have been ignored. As for a WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Editorial policy, I'd make it short and sweet: a smallish editorial board elected for fixed terms by the community, with a mandate to adhere to the spirit of WP:NPOV, and specific instructions to avoid giving excessive weight to any content bearing on the alleged negative behaviour of named contributors currently under discussion by ArbCom, at ANI, or the like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This is already the status quo. Much of Signpost "policy" occurs as talk page discussions that forms into consensus. EpicPupper (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
There's no exclusivity or self-appointedness about the Signpost team. The one thing that has always been consistent about the Signpost in all my time on Wikipedia has been the open call for more volunteers to join the team. Such accusations are groundless. WaggersTALK 10:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This RfC is merely a poll for The Signpost to interpret what community consensus about the issue is. It would not issue any binding requirements whatsoever; if you want to do that, go to MfD. EpicPupper (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair chance for rebuttal
I concur with not limiting the Signpost's ability to write about cases as they see fit, subject to BLP. However, I do believe that editors the Signpost writes about deserve a chance to fairly respond and be included at the same level (that is, signpost articles, not comments) as the original writers. Currently, the Signpost deadlines are fairly close to publication. I would suggest changing articles with substantive comments about another editor to work to an earlier deadline (perhaps, 3 days?), to allow fair comparison. The reasoning for this is primarily that the Signpost is one of the few cases where one editor will have a bully pulpit with a substantively different medium to anyone responding to them. Hopefully this could mitigate the issues we've seen without eliminating the ability to write about aspects that matter to many. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This! Obviously, as any respectable newspapper. In other words: The Signpost must be a reliable source. - Nabla (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost is not for back-and-forth, battling of opinions. Say a Sp article posts opinions about an editor. Now a special "rebuttal section" in the next Sp gives said editor a venue to dispute these opinions? Then what? The Sp writer then rebuts the rebuttal? And then the editor strikes back at the Sp writer, and on and on...? That's silly. If a Sp writer wants to say something about an editor, eg: one involved in an ArbCom case... that's what the ArbCom case page is for. Sp writers can post their opinions there, just like everybody else, and the venue is already set-up for writers to respond to opinions that involve them. If it's not ArbCom, there are already user and article talk pages, WikiProjects and noticeboards where Sp writers can post comments abouts other editors. Hopefully this RfC will clear up just what the Signpost is, and isn't. - wolf 01:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
An opinion article, a rebuttal, a rebuttal to the rebuttal, a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal... silly, indeed. It could go on and on and on, with people replying to each other, talking about each other's points, raising arguments and counterarguments, building on each other's knowledge and observations. If this were allowed to continue, new people might jump in, raising ideas of their own. Before we know it, dozens of people might be debating ideas. And of course, somebody new to the conversation will want to revisit the older discussions, and will probably want to reinterpret the whole thing, sparking an entirely new round of opinions, rebuttals, and replies. This could spread to other languages if we're not careful. It could really go on forever--for generations, people might be examining and re-examining each other's ideas. What would be the point of it all? Levivich (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Before you deleted your last reply to me, I was simply going to say: "A 'free exchange of ideas' is one thing, a free exchange of bullshit is quite another. When you have to disingenuously misrepresent your opponent's position at the outset, you have already lost the argument.' But, I was edit conflicted by this... fantasy of yours, so I will add that if it were to happen, that could be cool, but it were to happen on the pages of the Signpost, that would be silly. - wolf 05:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Just the ideas we agree with, then? Levivich (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Wolf, and do not think sarcasm is helpful here. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with Wolf and think sarcasm helps demonstrate the weakness in the argument that the Signpost publishing opposing viewpoints is silly or otherwise a bad thing. Levivich (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Oy, this creatively bereft reverse-puppeting thing you're doing is not at all constructive. Going back to the original point of this RfC, Sp writers posting opinionated comments about active ArbCom cases; the question here is why...? Why can't Sp writers post their comments about an active Arbcom case at the ArbCom case pages? A venue not only designed for that very purpose, but also set-up for direct rebuttal comments? (Instead of creating some kind of 3-day response windows before publication, as suggested above, or turning the Sp into a wide-open tit-for-tat opinion board... which unlike the Star Trek-like utopia you seem to think this will lead to, it would be more like a cross between the old IMDb messageboards and 4chan. Either way, it would not be what the Sp is now.) This is the part I find "silly". For any of kind back-and-forth discussion, editors, including Sp writers, should use any one of the numerous venues already in place, and just let the Signpost continue to be a "community newspaper". (jmho) - wolf 22:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Right, because back and forth has no place in a newspaper. A newspaper is no place for opinions or debate. Levivich (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Newspapers historically were just giant, if not outright flagrant, opinion pieces that provided no opportunity for rebuttal from the opposition. It was only post-Watergate that they really began to take on a perspective of quasi-objectivity. In that sense, the Signpost is not really operating too far out of the realm of what a newspaper would be. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Levivich "Right, because back and forth has no place in a newspaper. A newspaper is no place for opinions or debate." - Right, how about you provide a diff that shows where and when I said exactly that, of strike it as an admitted disingenuous and deliberate misrepresentation?
That aside, if a Sp writer posts commentary about an active ArbCom case that an involved party would like to respond to, where and how would this take place? Does the Sp give the party advanced notice and an oppottunity to have a response included in the article? (not unlike traditional newspapers (TNPs), but the Sp is not that, it's an in-house newsletter.) Can the involved party write their own Sp article? (rare, but happens in some TNPs), should there be a 'comments section' at the bottom of the article? (though found on some TNP's online editions, many are eliminating these.) or is there some other means that you propose that can provide both immediacy and equal visibility for all...?
Orrr, how about the Sp writer posts any comments about an active ArbCom case at the the active Arbcom case, which is already set-up to give involved parties the opportunity to respond, on equal footing. The back-and-forth you seek already exists, the question is why deviate from it in a manner that can be problematic? - wolf 02:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Does the Sp give the party advanced notice and an oppottunity to have a response included in the article? yes
Can the involved party write their own Sp article? yes
should there be a 'comments section' at the bottom of the article? this already exists. EpicPupper (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@EricPupper: "this already exists." - This is in regards to comment sections, and I'll respond to this one first. As I noted above, many online editions of traditional newspapers are closing down their comments sections, as there is very little benefit to be had in the sections that are rife with trolling, and few, if any, legitimate debates about the topic that can stay on course, as opposed to descending into vitriolic flamewars. If a Sp writer posts an Op.Ed. about an open ArbCom case, to what benefit is it to have an ArbCom party respond via the Sp comments section? That person is then not on equal footing with the Sp writer, something he would have at the case venue.
The the idea that someone can write their own Sp article (is that open to anyone? At anytime? Regardless of the intended subject matter for the article? I don't think it matters. Again, there is the equal-footing issue. How much time will you give the responding editor to craft their response article? Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready? (or do they have to wait month to get their side heard?) And then what? The Sp writer responds, and then the editor again, and we end up with dueling columns... in a monthly newsletter.Again I ask why, when ArbCom is already set up for this?
As for the first bit about about advanced notice, I think that has been addressed in the second reply. And lastly, with everything that has been said here (in toto, thru-out this entire RfC) has anyone provided a reaasonable explanation as to why Sp writers can't (or won't) just simply write about active ArbCom cases at the active Arbcom cases? Especially given that ArbCom appears to be better set-up for any potential responses. (jmho) - wolf 03:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Well said. More rebuttals in the Signpost please! Legoktm (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild on the comments section - you seem to be opposing an open discussion section, but also supporting arbcom processes, which include open comments sections. I won’t get into my opinions on the matter, but I think saying that arbcom can’t be a vitriolic flamewars is a stretch.
Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready? Usually not. The Signpost doesn’t do this for any article, so why is it relevant here? The original op-ed wouldn’t be awarded this kind of privilege either.
And finally, it appears that you’re opposing any form of discussion outside of arbcom. I’m not sure this would be optimal and unbureaucratic. EpicPupper (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps give my comments a re-read, as you seem to have misconstrued or misunderstood them entirely. If you're not sure about a comment or position... just ask. - wolf 15:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild - I can only assume that either you didn't read the starting comment in this section or you are making a point for rhetorical effect, by saying Again, there is the equal-footing issue. How much time will you give the responding editor to craft their response article? Will you hold off releasing the next Sp editon until the article is ready? (or do they have to wait month to get their side heard?). My initial comment specifically proposed a timeline for rebuttal - 3 days. Whether that is added to the initial article or as a separate article is one for the Signpost and the involved editors to decide, but while they're on a 2-week timetable, 3 days would seem to function as a fair balance. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. But just because you suggested something, doesn't make it so and is no reason for me to not ask about it among several possibilities in a reply to someone else who purports to have actual answers. But as it is, I'm trying to address the actual OP of this RfC, but I'm not really getting any direct answers, just general indignation and mostly off-topic rhetoric. If anyone has a specific answer - great, otherwise I don't really have anything else to add here. - wolf 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that editors' views on these points have more to do with what's normal in their own country vs what's desirable in this specific venue. For example, @Thryduulf lives in a country that is notorious for gag orders that prevent newspapers from speaking about open court cases, and even super-injunctions that prevent the media from saying that the reason they aren't reporting on _____ is because it's prohibited, rather than because it's not of public interest. He advocates in favor of limiting coverage until the ArbCom case is resolved. I see some American editors – where gag orders are more limited and generally offensive to national sentiment – taking the opposite view, and insisting that there be no restrictions.
Maybe the resolution that I'd like to see is: We should all stop thinking of ArbCom cases as "a trial" and thinking of the ArbCom members as "jury members" who have to be protected from undue media influence while they debate their "verdict".
I don't know if that's possible, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not just arbitrators who should be protected from undue "media" influence, it is the case that should be so protected, meaning everyone involved whether they are a party, a victim, a commentor (involved or otherwise), a failed peace-maker, an arbitrator, a bystander or just part of the wider community. Those forming opinions about a dispute should do so on the basis of the evidence presented in the case, not a partisan opinion piece in a venue that thinks of itself as, and attempts to be, a community newspaper. If someone has something to say about a dispute (rather than factual reporting of the ongoing resolution process) then either they should say it in the appropriate section of the arbitration case pages or in private to the committee via email. If neither of those would be appropriate then the comment should not be made at all.
As a former arbitrator, I would have found articles like the one that sparked this discussion and the controversy around it a hindrance to the goal of resolving a dispute fairly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf, when I read Those forming opinions about a dispute should do so on the basis of the evidence presented in the case, not a partisan opinion piece, I wonder: Is that how any of us treat the people we care about? I can't imagine you saying to anyone "Sorry, don't tell me how you're feeling about your parents' divorce. I'm only going to form my opinion on the basis of evidence presented in the case. If you have something to say about their dispute, then you should say it to the court, or the comment should not be made at all. Otherwise, your comment will be a hindrance to the goal of resolving the dispute fairly." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between a dispute on a website and a divorce, but writing partisan opinion pieces in the village newsletter about a friend's acrimonious divorce is definitely no more likely to help reach an amicable settlement than doing so about a Wikipedia dispute is. It's less likely to hinder as arbcom is not a court and so is structured differently to divorce proceedings (at least how they are conducted in the UK), and these fundamental differences to legal processes are why a piece like this is more harmful to Wikipedia than it would be to a court case - and yet it is court cases that have protections for sub judice reporting. Talk to your friends as much as you like, but do so responsibly which means not hosting your conversation over a megaphone in the market square, and don't then get surprised or upset when friends of the other party/parties complain that their only right of reply is in a footnote two-four weeks later. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I like the description of "the village newsletter", and I agree with you about the possibility for doing damage. The village gossips managed to do that before paper was invented, after all.
I think some people may have different views of The Signpost, which might cause them to think of it more like a blog, or talking to their friends in their living room or the village square. Someone holding that view might draw the line in a different place. And, of course, not everyone seems to think that producing an amicable settlement is work that everyone can contribute to. If you (i.e., they) see ArbCom as a legal proceeding, then they might feel powerless to affect the actual outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Interested in writing for TSP
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I noticed that your "meet the team" page indicates you don't have a writer for the "On The Bright Side" column. I'm interested in filling that position! Please let me know if this is not the appropriate place for this, or if you have any other questions/requirements I did not know of. Dil (need me?) (what I've done) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Consolidated talk page not populated
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The consolidated talk page for the new issue published about 12 hours ago, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-05-08, is currently empty. Is there some manual update that needs to be made in order to make it work? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This page is still not populating. Pinging Bri and JPxG. Is some part of the publishing process or checklist not working? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the issue is arising from the fact that this index page used by Module:Signpost has yet to be updated. It looks like it's meant to be automatically updated by User:WegweiserBot, but hasn't been. Aidan9382(talk) 13:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a User:WegweiserBot task, which I wrote some months ago, and am currently running manually. I need to complete the BRFA and start running it from the server automatically. jp×g 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Typo in recent featured content
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
@Adam Cuerden and @QuicoleJR, the most recent featured content article contains an error: At the top, it says "This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from [date] through [date]." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I would help, but I honestly don't know what dates to put. Also, I think this isn't the only time this has happened. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I recommend to Signpost editors the use of "TKTK" in these cases. As the article explains, it is "a unique and visually arresting string that is both easily seen in running text and easily searched for". A pre-publication script could be programmed to search for this string and throw an error if it is found. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's ALWAYS either Month 1-15 or month 16-[end]. My apologies, though, will fix. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 18:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion - intros
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Maybe tell us what each section is about on the single issue edition intros. Of the four sections on the current page, I still have no idea what any of it is about, because it appears to be written on some sort of slang! - Roxy thedog 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I prefer mini-editions like this to waiting until you have a full plate, for news recency reasons. Sandizer (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion - rolling basis
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
what if, instead of print deadlines, The Signpost operated on a rolling basis? There'd be a "What's new with The Signpost..." newsletter every two weeks, but other than that, articles are published when the care has been taken to ensure that they are finished and properly vetted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Interesting idea that modernizes the publication! Frostly (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Question about CommonsComix
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
When I was looking around in the Newsroom, I found something called "CommonsComix." What is this? ChameleonGamer 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Kipala has died
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a quick heads-up that User:Kipala passed away. His primary contributions were at Swahili Wikipedia, but he also contributed here, and was a longtime leader particularly in the African Wikimedia community. Risker (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Risker. Wikimedia Tanzania has posted a tribute on Facebook: [2]AndreasJN466 06:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Draft linked as obit - with typo
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I see someone has removed the "draft" template - and I've BOLDly fixed the typo myself. PamD 10:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I am now terminating my subscription and will not speak well of the Signpost again
Latest comment: 8 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Opinions expressed. I don't think anything positive results in keeping this thread open. - jc37 08:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Having written or co-written 260 Signpost articles, I'm surprised to have my copy-editing of Headbomb's suboptimal prose reverted.
I won't ever bother to help the Signpost again. It's now on my hit-list for stuff that's bad about en.WP. I'm scrubbing my subscription too. Tony(talk) 04:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Talk about an overreaction... especially since I restored about half of your copy edits (which you then reverted for unknown reasons). The rest changed the flow of sentences (your hatred for commas), or introduced errors of their own (...do the hard work of collecting these for you and giving you..., instead of the correct give). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Tony1: Thanks for the feedback, Tony. You have been around for longer than me, so maybe you can help me out here: do you have any pointers for how I might go about the task of preventing a situation like this in the future? jp×g 19:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
JP, I'm not sure there's a solution to unreasonable attitudes by writers to those who try to improve their prose. But you won't see me around again, that's for sure. Tony(talk) 01:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, Tony, this is totally an overreaction. That article really needed a copyedit, but like Headbomb said, he did restore most of the actual error-fixing edits you made. The rest of them were just changing the style of writing, which would be fine in article-space, but seems like pointless pushing of your style in a Signpost article that is supposed to be written by one person. AryKun (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Not my style. I don't own my writing as Signpost writers seem to. It's plain, simple English, and I don't appreciate my time being wasted (or even half-wasted) by a bad writer. Don't bother me again: this rag is not worth reading. Tony(talk) 11:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't care what you do in your own time, but do mind WP:NPA. You were blocked for it before, I'm more than happy to take you to WP:AN again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Research for next Signpost issue
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Pinging @Matma Rex:, who added the section header to the "commentspage" template the day after New Year's Day. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
No objections from me. Note, however, that there are two templates that generate these headings:
When making my edits earlier this year, I had to add different markup in both places: [3][4].
You'll have to be careful so that the headings don't get duplicated or removed anywhere, this can probably be done by wrapping them in <noinclude> on the discussion pages when making the change. You should definitely test on a single page that everything works (including the section edit and subscribe links) before letting AWB loose. Matma Rextalk 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
A few suggestions about the Signpost website
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@JPxG Hello, I just wanted to thank you again for implementing an official website for the Signpost: it definitely has got potential!
I don't know if you already saw my comment on the announcement article, but I just wanted to point out a few graphical issues I've encountered over there. Firstly, some of the pictures included in the articles look misplaced and tend to "invade" quotes (like on this page, for example); secondly, I think the bold font used for the articles' headlines and paragraphs is a bit too hard on the eyes, since it appears to be in heavy contrast with everything else...
Speaking of high/low contrast, what about including an option to switch from a light background to a dark one, and vice versa? Anyway, keep it up, because you've already done a great job so far! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Gallery issue at signpost.news
Featured pictures gallery at signpost.news looks pretty bad. Somehow it turned the gallery into a bulleted list of thumbnails (or something). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Text wrap around images
Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'm sure not many people visit Signpost on mobile, but I've realised that the text wrap around images on Signpost articles isn't working well. I came to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary from a Depths of Wiki tweet, and the leading words of the obituary are unreadable due to being broken into fragments across many lines as it is pushed to the left of the image that already takes up much of the space. It is reproducible with other Signpost articles too. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Mobile is fucked, desktop is fucked, and I don't think anyone understands how the stylesheets work. The good news is that I might, soon, and then I will do my best to fix it. jp×g 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@CX Zoom: IDK what browser you're using but, if you increase the size of your viewport within Firefox (by toggling 'Desktop site'‡ button under the hamburger menu) it reflows the page and things usually look fine… even on the dumpster fire mobile web version. Also: within the Wikipedia mobile apps, data comes off the Wikimedia API so, formatting is stripped, and images live on separate lines from text. Apps are buggy as all hell in their on right, however (often can't reply on this very page for example)…
‡ not to be confused with the 'Desktop'/'Mobile view' button at bottom of Wiki pages. -- dsprc[talk] 07:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Issue on Chrome (Android)Thanks for letting me know that Browser's desktop mode fixes it, and I assume that is due to the fact that all elements (texts and images) appear to reduce in size in that mode allowing more space for complete words to appear. However, on the right you can see how a Signpost article with image in portrait mode looks like in mobile generally. Another way to view it would be to view it in landscape mode, but portrait mode should also work fine without needing to change mode or orientation. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It's primarily due to MediaWiki being shit and full of technical debt. Files are displayed within tables – rendering engine of the browser tries to wedge those tables into a tiny viewport, instead of doing sensible wordwrapping. The two coupled together = pain and suffering… with WMF web developers doing the flogging… Also doesn't matter if JP makes markup changes on their posts, as the mobile version here overrides competent formatting or markup choices. -- dsprc[talk] 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
MediaWiki doesn't use tables for images. Editors do. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
So, is there some solution for this? —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 16:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Watchlist notices
Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
If I'm reading MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 12 correctly, the Signpost hasn't had a watchlist notice since May. Is this a problem with the Signpost publishing script, or something else? Could it be fixed? This is the main way I was getting reminded to read the Signpost.
Is the Signpost still publishing bi-weekly? Was that a factor in watchlist notices getting declined? Personally I liked it when the Signpost published monthly instead of bi-weekly, so just throwing that out there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I just put Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost on my watchlist. The traffic on this talk page is low enough that nearly every time this page pops up on my watchlist, it's for a new issue. I think you can also get a notice delivered to your talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
We got pushback from the community on using the watchlist notices when we made publication more frequent than monthly: see MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 12. I would not say it was consistent or overwhelming, but if somebody wanted to get it started again, it would probably need some kind of approval. The "monthly only" dictum might have spawned from the closure of this request. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the publishing script could be modified to only request a watchlist notice once every other issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I see the delivery notice on the user talk page of several colleagues. That's plenty for me; no need to put it in the watchlist header. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Ping JPxG
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@JPxG I emailed you an idea for a submission a few days ago but didn't hear back, even after after following up with {{ygm}} on your talk page. Can you confirm that you saw my email and/or I'm following the right process? RoySmith(talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
First two (2022-08-31 and 2022-09-30) link to each other because the name of the column was changed. Shouldn't similar links be added between 2023-01-01 and 2023-12-04?
2023-12-24 links to 2023-12-04 at the bottom as ← Previous "Comix". But 2023-12-04 doesn't link back as Next "Comix" →. This just seems like a bug.
What do you think? —andrybak (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Iranian state interference with WP content?
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is it just me, or are the black section headings above the white article titles incredibly hard to see? They are placed on top of predominantly dark images, doesn't just make them hard to read, some of them are nearly invisible. Couldn't they just be made a similar color to the article titles themselves? Toadspike (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Toadspike Completely agreed! I raised it here as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the current issue, it seems like each article's image is the same size but some articles' below-the-image text is one line whereas others are two. Because it appears to use automatic packing rather than fixed-height for the text or grid-layout for the entries, that means the items in adjacent columns lower down the page are misaligned with each other. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not great. jp×g🗯️ 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years until a consensus is reached. jp×g🗯️ 05:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)