Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

deadline is 2025-03-22 02:00 UTC (currently 2025-03-20 07:27:25)

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-03-20 07:27:25.

The Signpost currently has 5662 articles, 708 issues, and 13811 pages (4520 talk and 9291 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 21, Issue 3 (2025-02-27) · Purge

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

Articles and pageviews for 2025-02-27

Pageviews for 2025-02-27 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Traffic report	Temporary scars, February stars	438	480	480	480	480	480	480
Tips and tricks	One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?	670	713	713	713	713	713	713
Technology report	Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year	885	942	942	942	942	942	942
Serendipity	Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World	437	475	475	475	475	475	475
Recent research	What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read	701	754	754	754	754	754	754
Opinion	Sennecaster's RfA debriefing	568	599	599	599	599	599	599
Obituary	Ümüt Çınar (Kmoksy) and Vinícius Medina Kern (Vmkern)	370	415	415	415	415	415	415
News and notes	Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons	1099	1175	1175	1175	1175	1175	1175
In the media	The end of the world	1280	1374	1374	1374	1374	1374	1374
Essay	The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source	510	558	558	558	558	558	558
Community view	Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors	881	929	929	929	929	929	929

Previous issue: 2025-02-07 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2025-02-07

Pageviews for 2025-02-07 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Traffic report	A wild drive	657	865	988	988	988	988	988
Recent research	GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians	1840	2298	2627	2627	2627	2627	2627
Opinion	Fathoms Below, but over the moon	686	853	952	952	952	952	952
News and notes	Let's talk!	1082	1353	1531	1531	1531	1531	1531
In the media	Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk	1478	1920	2231	2231	2231	2231	2231
Community view	24th Wikipedia Day in New York City	582	736	823	823	823	823	823
Arbitration report	Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed	951	1198	1370	1370	1370	1370	1370

Articles and pageviews for previous issues/years

Possible submission

@Smallbones - @Funcrunch wrote a piece on trans editors on Wikipedia handling the Trump administration (full disclosure, I was interviewed for it) for the trans news org Assigned Media: On Trans Issues, Wikipedia is a Bulwark Against Disinformation - Might be good for the upcoming issue! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link & ping! I wasn't sure if Assigned Media would be considered an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article cite, but should be fine for The Signpost! Funcrunch (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist:

This looks very good to me! A couple of minimum requirements here - full permission from Funcrunch to submit and their agreement to use their name or username (which one?) as well as making the license CC-BY SA 4.0. Would Assigned Media have to change the license or does Funcrunch still own the copyright? I'm not the E-i-C here, so @JPxG: would have to approve it, but he doesn't have a lot of time these days. In his possible absence, I'll suggest that several regular contributors, e.g. @Bri, HaeB, Bluerasberry, and Oltrepier: sign off on it. It's very clear that Funcrunch is a very good writer and The Signpost needs good writers. So I'll suggest Funcrunch consider doing something more here, perhaps write or curate a semi-regular column for us. I'm just making a suggestion here, so everything can or will change. Here goes - the column could be called "Gender and such" (I love silly names), appear whenever you want - say every 3 or 4 issues, have different main authors with Funcrunch selecting the topic and or author (I guess Bluerasberry would be interested a couple times a year), the general topic could be anything about LGBTQ+ issues plus related editor bios/autobios/experiences/interviews/community and such. The details generally take 2-3 articles to get a feel for it. Let us know what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Smallbones! I didn't realize we were talking about reposting the whole article in the Signpost, just linking to it. I wouldn't be in favor of the former.

I have contributed to the Signpost in the past (when @Pete Forsyth was editor in chief), but not sure I can commit to a regular column right now. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Funcrunch. I look forward to reading that article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I obviously jumped the gun on that one. About the only place I can see to use it now is on In the media. It might be hard to summarize the article in one paragraph, but we'll see how it goes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones @Funcrunch Yes, I also think "In the media" would be the right place to park this interview at.

Thank you for flagging it, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Smallbones, @Pete Forsyth, and @Oltrepier! Also tagging @Tamzin and @GorillaWarfare who were included in the piece. Funcrunch (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch Just so you know, I've included a short blurb about your article in the "In brief" section of the ITM column. Nice job, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :-) Funcrunch (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:3 In the media

Larry Sanger

I saw these stories in Christian press and thought they were not appropriate for The Signpost. It really doesn't have anything to do with us IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I strongly agree, especially because Sanger's post doesn't appear to address his current view on Wikipedia in any meaningful way, aside of a few quick mentions here and there. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. This really has nothing to do with us, and we don't need to be reporting on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However you feel about whether we need to be reporting on it it does have cleary have something to do with us... We can't just memory hole Sanger. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Sanger is an important individual, but we don't need to report on every aspect of his personal life. We should only report on his actions if they directly relate to Wikipedia, and the same goes for anyone else. Just because he was part of the process of creating the site doesn't mean we need to report on him every single time he's in the news. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that we need to report on him every single time he's in the news, thats a red herring. However we do seem to more or less kneejerk Wales into the Signpost, but I will admit that the Wales coverage is also generally much more directly related to wikipedia. Maybe this is just my own perspective because I'm not an elder enough editor to remember the era in which Sanger was directly involved in the project, to me he's always seemed like more of a historical figure but one who was still immensely influential on the project. This doesn't seem like just anything, this seems significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why his religion would be significant to a project he is no longer involved in. It might contextualize his criticism a little, but even that's a stretch. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting, its the sort of thing I want to see in the Signpost... Which is generally pretty boring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are appropriate for the Signpost because Sanger matters a great deal to the community (even if just as a punching bag). The Signpost isn't a formal part of wikipedia, we should have leeway to cover this sort of thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back That's true, but my biggest point against reporting this is about Sanger's post not addressing his current stance on Wikipedia in any meaningful way... Oltrepier (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why it is relevant to Wikipedia at all. It just seems like being weirdly stalkerish about Sanger's life on our end. Or trying some sort of oblique "ha ha, we win" sort of mention. I don't think this should be included at all. And I say that as someone with strong negative opinions of the person in question. Silver seren^C 17:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @QuicoleJR @Silver seren @Horse Eye's Back In my opinion, the best we could do is just a quick mention in the short blurbs, as we usually do with the events Jimbo's involved in... Still, I stand on my previous comments. Oltrepier (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not throw a fit over a quick mention. However it still seems unrelated to our audience. Would we go out of our way to report on him experiencing other major life events, disconnected from Wikipedia, such as marrige or change of city of residence? I don't think so. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri You're right, and I've just noticed that Sanger already wrote about his reported conversion almost two years ago, so that's likely a closed case... Oltrepier (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and disinformation on trans issues

@Bri, JPxG, and Smallbones: Just to clarify, are we going to cover the piece we discussed about over here, in the end? I feel like ITM would be the most fitting place, since Funcrunch themselves prefers not to re-post the full article. Oltrepier (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; even if I had permission, I wouldn't want to repost it in entirety on-wiki. Would be happy to see it in ITM though. Funcrunch (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks well suited for In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Smallbones Good, thank you! I'm afraid I won't be able to take care of it, though, since I'm already working on the other lead story about the 404 Media report...

Could you write something for it, please? Oltrepier (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this front? Oltrepier (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pushback from Maharashtra

Regarding the Maharashtra cyber police thing and the article Chhaava. I don't understand what's happening and reported it at AN. Here's what Malcolmxl5 said: Sambhaji has been seeing a lot of activity, prompted no doubt by the release of the film Chhaava. Basically, people are objecting to the depiction of Sambhaji in our article. Both the article and article talk page are currently protected. I'll try to work this into the item, somehow. It might have to get a big longer (i.e. moved out of "in brief"). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, see Talk:Sambhaji#Surge_of_requests_incoming!, perhaps it'll help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1], it seems people watched the biopic-ish film Chhaava, noted that the WP-article Sambhaji didn't match in all details, and started talking about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I just wanted to notice that I've moved this item at the start of the "In brief" section, due to various changes to the lead story line-up... I hope it's not a big deal. Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri@Oltrepier Have you noticed that none of the press on this seems to be willing to go into what the problem is, as in quotes of WP-content and naming refs? Have they concluded they will be in trouble if they do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zee 24 TAAS, a Marathi news channel, has once again proven the power of fearless journalism, launching a high-impact campaign against Wikipedia for hosting derogatory content on the revered Maratha warrior king, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj.". Good to know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I guess we should just ignore them... Oltrepier (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source [2] actually mentioned article-content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charges filed

I don't have time to follow up but India Today says that the cyber police are filing charges against 4 or 5 individuals [3]. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Safe to say that my previous statement is going to age like milk, then... Oltrepier (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...turn into a delicious cheese? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things are happening fast today. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#"Legal_Issues" and the recent mega-edits at Sambhaji. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Bri Ok, so would you like to swap the last entry (about WikiTok) with this bit of news? Or should we wait until the next issue for further developments? Oltrepier (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on that, I'm thinking more on where should this go in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Do you mean a dedicated article? Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be adding something at Wikipedia_in_India#Indian_government_and_Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essentials should be covered in this issue – gov't irked, police called, people charged, editor(s) appeared at ANI with some legal stuff, and admins are discussing "protective" blocks of the affected accounts. This all needs to get community attention before the train really leaves the station, which could essentially be the case by the next issue. The ordering of ITM stories isn't my first concern. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo commented at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#New_India-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you, this might be useful for @Bri and @Smallbones, who have been working on the story. Oltrepier (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request

Moved from user talk

You are wrong with saying that, "An editor has apparently summited to demands of the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell of the Maharashtra Police". He clearly did not. He just tried to remove the content he added and then agreed not to revert those who are restoring the said content. See the thread here. I hope you will remove that part. Thanks NXcrypto Message 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NXcrypto Actually, I didn't contribute to that story myself, but I'll report this to @Smallbones, who is actively working on it.

Thank you for clarifying this bit! Oltrepier (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NXcrypto: Take a look at the article now and please tell me what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically nothing changed. It still says "An editor has apparently partially submitted to demands". We know he hasn't submitted since he mailed the WMF for assistance [4]. NXcrypto Message 15:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NXcrypto @Smallbones I've boldly made some further edits myself: let me know if it sounds better. Oltrepier (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier and NXcrypto: I have a great deal of sympathy for the editor involved, but the way forward is to report the truth, e.g. I can't say that he was "allegedly" involved, when everybody who was involved, including the editor involved says that he was involved. "Allegedly" will just confused the readers. Also your time-line on the involvement of S&T looks to be off. He did "partially submit" by reverting his own edits. And please never change a person's real name in the middle of an article. I did mention T&S, but I won't mislead the readers. Please send any further requests/clarification to the newsroom talk page, where I will be glad to consider them. (and I'll repost this section as well). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF and new protection tools

@JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, Svampesky, and Jayen466: I've finally submitted my article on the 404 Media report about recent declarations by WMF executives and staffers on the development and extension of user protection tools.

As it's usually the case with my blurbs, there might be various passages that sound too clunky or verbose, so feel free to cut down or edit everything that needs to be fixed! Also, I've highlighted a couple of paragraphs towards the end that might need sources I wasn't able to find.

I'll now switch to copy-editing and other minor tasks, since I likely won't be able to write another full story on time... Oltrepier (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia harassment over climate change

Open letter, 245 signatures from French Wikipedians right now.

fr:Wikipédia:Lettre ouverte : non à l'intimidation des contributeurs bénévoles

Related discussion

fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/17_février_2025#Lettre_ouverte_contre_l'intimidation_de_contributeurs

The letter describes how a journalist for Le Point has done Wikipedia misconduct targeted to an editor. The magazine does not have conventional views of climate change, and the Wikipedia editor does.

I am not able to write this up just now but expect to return to this. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I wrote a blurb on the issue in News and Notes. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the open letter here, and is now also available at the French Wikipedia. Romaine (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, Romaine, and Bri: I posted the open letter yesterday, after being notified of its existence by User:Jules* at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view (btw there are 711 signers now). I only see 2 or 3 minor problems with it now: the translation is not so much a problem now. Last night I compared my copy edited google translation with Romaine's and made a few changes. There never seemed to be a problem with the meaning of the translation - only putting it into more idiomatic English. The 2 remaining problems:the piccy and the blurb, which anyone can change. I've tried a couple of piccies. Eugene Delacroix's "Marianna on the barricades" (1830). This got the point across that it's a French topic and was about some sort of fight. But, it might seem to be a cliche to many French (kinda like putting a photo of the Statue of Liberty in an article about American immigration), and it's too violent for my tastes. I replaced it with a French flag, but that doesn't work that well. The blurb, which is still there is "Liberte, Liberte cherie" (Liberty, Liberty, beloved) is from La Marseillaise the French national anthem and might have a small bit of relevance. But please change these to something less cliched and more relevant. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:3 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should have something publishable up by the deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:3 Opinion

Reserved for a guest writer. Svampesky (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind the deadline. I've been known to mess up, but I think there is just 1 day to go for writing. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @Svampesky There's one more day now! Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to Sennecaster about publishing their RfA debrief, but they haven't been online. Svampesky (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky No worries, there's always the next issue if that doesn't make the cut! Oltrepier (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky published, sorry about that. Life has gone half up poorly lately but my content edits were done on Saturday. If it's too late, that's fine as well and I can move it back to my userspace until then. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to protect your privacy on Wikipedia from outside interference

For your consideration, I've created a mostly-finished advice article, "How to protect your privacy on Wikipedia from outside interference", which explains how we expose our personal information through our Wikipedia editing, how other organizations can access this information, and how we can prevent our information from being revealed. The article was written in response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and the leaked Heritage Foundation slide deck published by The Forward. There are two sections that still need to be completed ("Technical means" and the conclusion), which I intend to finish as soon as possible, but I wanted to present the draft here ahead of the next issue's deadline. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 14:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An important topic, but with respect: This is an already very lengthy piece with a lot of irrelevant information. E.g. it devotes pages of text to detailed explications about browser fingerprints - Your hardware fingerprints, which are calculated by performing tests on your device's graphics processor and sound chip etc. - only to admit in a single paragraph that Wikimedia sites don't record them at all (besides the user agent part, which covered in similar breadth in another section).

Other parts are outright misleading due to (apparently) mindless copypasting. E.g. the "Legal means" section implies that Metadata from file uploads ("such as the place and time you took the photo") is among the Personal Information [that will be] deleted, aggregated or de-identified after 90 days under WMF's privacy policy. That would come as a surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity to Commons uploads.

And lastly, despite its length, this article omits some of the most important advice regarding activities that have in the past led to editors getting doxxed or legally attacked - like attending real life events or taking on formal roles in Wikimedia organizations.

There are already various existing pages which cover this topic more competently and more succinctly, e.g. WP:OUTED and some material by the Foundation's Human Rights team (e.g. [5]). I'm not saying that a new treatment couldn't have value. But I would strongly suggest to:

focus more on actual threat models, in particular mechanisms by which editors have in fact gotten outed frequently
don't dump pages of technical or legal information that you read somewhere and found interesting (about a device's number of processor cores or such), instead focus on the most actionable and important advice

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest feedback, HaeB. I've converted the page into a userspace essay with the introduction removed and will gradually improve its contents over time. The intent of the page was to provide information that existing pages, such as WP:OUTED, did not cover. For example, I wanted to explain the significance of using a VPN on Wikipedia to a reader who may not necessarily understand what an IP address can reveal about them.

In response to a couple of points, I covered browser fingerprinting because the Heritage slide deck specifically listed "Technical Fingerprinting" as one of its "Targeting Methdologies"; this connection would have been explained in the "Technical means" section. I've replaced the "90 days" mention with a link to the WMF's Data Retention Guidelines to prevent that sentence from being misunderstood; thank you for pointing that out. Although off-wiki activity (such as attending real-life events) does introduce privacy risks, the scope of the page is limited to on-wiki ("on Wikipedia") and online activity; I believe off-wiki event organizers should explain privacy considerations to participants in a way that is specifically tailored to their local situations.

I am still interested in submitting a concise article that would focus specifically on one topic: the privacy significance of using separate email addresses for donating to the WMF and for communication on Wikimedia sites. Do you think such an article would be of value to The Signpost? — Newslinger talk 19:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: I was at meta:WikiCredCon 2025 and a recommendation that came out of that was that people who want privacy should disassociate their Wikimedia-registered email from their other identities. Yes that is a great topic for a Signpost article. I edited your essay a bit and would coordinate further on this. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important topic, thanks for raising it, I agree that a Signpost article would make sense focussing on the most practical bits. I've made a couple of suggestions on the talkpage, but I'd emphasise WP:VALIDALT as a practical measure, especially for people who attend public events such as outreach. Just don't mention your alt account to anyone at such events. What we could consider is an RFC on broadening revision deletion/privacy policy perhaps even to account splitting. Currently we don't split accounts, but it should be technically possible, for example reassigning a couple of hundred of someone's early edits to a vanished user account with a scrambled password. Similarly we don't delete the logs for user renames, well maybe we should introduce that as an option especially for old renames. Afterall, if someone has been editing for a longtime, say over ten years, what do we lose if we allow people to vanish what their account did over ten years ago? Especially if their early edits were uncontentious as far as the community is concerned but potentially doxable. When Clean Start began there were no accounts with five years editing history, nowadays we have many people with fifteen and some with twenty, so for the few accounts that are now at risk, the ability to have their early edits dissassociated from their more recent activity sounds safe and sensible to me.Ϣere SpielChequers 07:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One day hence

My schedule has again been changed to random days with no notice, so I am apparently working tonight, after which I (supposedly) have a day off -- I will move the deadline thusly. jp×g 🗯️ 19:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more time to double-check everything! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am alive. This looks like it will be a relatively normal issue. jp×g 🗯️ 06:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's a normal issue? Monday or Tuesday? And how can this be a normal issue when I'm on the record at In the media saying It's the end of the world or maybe just the End of Wikipedia as we know it?

There are 7-8 good articles, essentially ready to go. I should withdraw the Op-ed. It's a great article and I'm proud to have written it, but it's 3 weeks out of date. Publish it if you want to, it's a great article. I may try to replace it with the same topic, just up-to-date. But don't wait on me and delay publishing. You never know what might come up. There are 2-3 articles that just look too short IMHO, without enough content. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, JPxG had already updated the deadline template (which I would recommend watchlisting in any case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Today is the publishing deadline. How are things looking? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we haven't heard from JPxG again and are way past the already postponed deadline:

@Bri: would you be available to take over publication as previously, assuming other team members help out with tying up the remaining loose ends at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status (in particular mark individual sections as copyedited and approve them standing in for the EiC)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that means it will be me in the morning (about ten hours from now). jp×g 🗯️ 09:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can stand by as backup to run the publication script. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear about the Op-ed, I'll withdraw that submission. It's just too old to be news. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri Just so you know, I've managed to go through and copy-edit almost every column in the last few hours.

Now I feel so tired and dizzy that it feels like words are racing in front of my eyes, but still, I hope this helps... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: You okay? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I just approved one of the sections (that I wasn't involved in writing myself). If other regulars could chip in too, we could have things ready for Bri to get the issue out soon. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather plokho but the issue is looking good and there is not much more to do now. jp×g 🗯️ 08:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the plokhoni (? my Russian isn't that good), but glad the issue is wrapped! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out. Annoying as hell error with the script that even my improved logging functions did not give any clue of determining. Had to manually revert and try again. No idea why it failed. May need to throttle pagemove queries. Whatever. That is in an HTML note here. Anyway;. jp×g 🗯️ 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2025-02-27 (as is linked up there). jp×g 🗯️ 11:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:3 News and notes

I will note that the current blurb of "The first RFC for admin elections is now wrapped up" feels slightly stale. Given the currently ongoing RFC on "Should admin elections be made permanent" perhaps it should be the more central focus of the blurb. Tag @QuicoleJR and JPxG:, not sure who's in charge of blurbs. Soni (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: I rewrote the blurb to focus on both RFCs equally. No opinion on what the title of this issue's News and Notes should be. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:3 Op-ed

I'm withdrawing this submission. Make that "I'll blank it". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries

It seems the last time we actually had an obituary was some time around July. Not optimal. The obvious thing would be to just shove everyone into a single obituary to catch us up, but this feels somewhat disrespectful -- one editor gets a whole article if they happen to die while we're caught up, and otherwise they are one in a list of seven? However, it occurs to me that the rate at which people die (or at least the rate at which [[WP:RIP|new entries are added to the list of deceased editors) is not very fast -- we do 4 issues every 3 months, and there have been seven obituaries at WP:RIP between last July and now, so I think that just doing one or two per issue would catch us up through all of them in the next three issues, without having to crowd it up too much. I am doing two for this issue; the next issue should be Wardxmodem and Afil, then after that TomCat4680 and JarrahTree, then after that Yashthepunisher -- and anyone who is added after that (note that they are not always strictly chronologically added, as someone can just stop editing for a while and it is only found out they've passed away later). jp×g 🗯️ 10:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Sounds good, thank you for reporting this. Oltrepier (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've prepped an obit for next issue and next next issue. Still needs to have some formatting, title, and actual authors put in (e.g. the poeple who actually wrote them on WP:RIP, not me who just created the page). jp×g 🗯️ 02:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia vs. Le Point in the media

Hello! To whom it may concern, it looks like the ongoing controversy involving the French Wikipedia and Le Point has sparked a frenzy in the media, especially in France: so far, I've managed to retrieve articles from Le Monde, Le Parisien – which published two different articles on the subject – La Voix du Nord and Le Figaro. The story drew attention from magazines all over the political spectrum, including left-wing Politis, as well as Marianne, a former progressive magazine that has seemingly undergone a dramatic shift to the right in recent years (although they've just appointed a journalist from Libération as their new director), and has apparently been a subject of discussion itself by Les sans pagEs at fr.wiki.

Oh, there are also two other articles by Ici Radio-Canada (in audio format and in French) and the Brussels Signal (the only one in English, at least for now).

I don't know how we can handle all of this for the next ITM column, but I've got a feeling that this case isn't going to fade away anytime soon... Oltrepier (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are definitely going to need to put this as one of the main blurbs in next issue's In The Media. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Absolutely, and I expect even more to come in the next few weeks. Oltrepier (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:4 issue deadline

Hello! Since the deadline for next issue hasn't been agreed to, yet, I just wanted to let you know that any choice would be fine to me: I've resumed uni classes, so I won't have much spare time, anyway... : D Oltrepier (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly picked a mid March Sunday for publication amd reset the timer. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be a Monday, actually ;)

But thanks for jumping in there. (We should look again at having the publication script automatically set a default publication date for the upcoming issue.)

@JPxG can you confirm you will be available to finalize and publish this issue tonight? Otherwise it would be good to update the deadline template and/or initialize the usual contingency plans (assuming Bri could take on publication).

Right now e.g. ITM still looks very drafty and N&N hasn't even been started yet. RR already has one item that folks are welcome to copyedit, I hope to have the rest up in publishable soon too, but more likely by like 4:00 UTC. I could then also help out with wrapping up ITM if needed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on some code that, if finished, might make some stuff easier. I guess we will have to see what we got. jp×g 🗯️ 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given the current state of the issue (6 out of 8 draft sections not even yet marked as "Ready for copyedit"), I just took the liberty of moving the deadline by a day - feel free to adjust with a more precise estimate. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this myself. There is some very good stuff in this issue, though, so I think it will be good-- just needs some time, which I shall have tomorrow. jp×g 🗯️ 04:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started News and notes, but it doesn't really have any content other than two RfAs to report. I won't have hurt feelings if it's held over. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: Well, there was a lot of news about the Le Point situation in France, as I reported previously, but maybe that's more suitable for ITM.

On a side note, I apologize for almost missing out entirely on this issue: my uni schedule is getting pretty hectic! Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There sure is more material worth covering, e.g. [6] (in particular the CentralNotice policy changes) and [7] (in particular recent lawsuits we haven't covered yet). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I'll try to go through and copy-edit some of the articles (at the very least) later tonight. Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Greenlandic_Wikipedia There's this, there's also the lightning fast admin recall, also that big resysopping thing at BN. jp×g 🗯️ 01:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Village_pump#March_2025_update_from_WMF_Legal_on_"Vogue_Taiwan_and_possible_Copyright_Washing"_discussion, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AI_images jp×g 🗯️ 02:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these, I have another hopefully interesting piece for N&N almost written up, which should help in providing this section with enough substance for publication. I should be able to post that in about 10h from now and also get RR into publishable shape. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have finished the software to look at the noticeboards and village pumps, I think there is probably some recent stuff we can use for N&N. Unfortunately it took quite a bit longer than I expected, as I am now completely pooped. The issue has a lot of good stuff I would like to expand on a little and then it looks like it will be good to roam.

I would exhort everyone to take a look in the collapser down here and see if there's anything worth throwing in there... I plan to write some more on these for the next issue's discussion report (as we have basically stopped having those except as occasional features) but we could spare some for this one as well. jp×g 🗯️ 19:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Wow, there were a lot of threads in there! My humble guess is that either the Kash Patel situation or the discussion about suspected POV pushing of the Iranian government would be the most interesting topic to discuss. Oltrepier (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uh, no notice on this, and I didn't get any either: I have apparently been scheduled for three back-to-back shifts with zero notice on the days I was supposed to have off, including the day I have to drive two hours the other direction for a DMV appointment I had to wait a month for which is necessary to register my vehicle -- hell yeah dude that's awesome. Well I guess I am just sleeping in my fucking car tonight so you will have to publish without me. jp×g 🗯️ 20:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Well, that's a shame... but don't worry, we'll be fine! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard/pump threads from January to now that are above 25,000 bytes

board name	archive number	heading	length	timestamp count	user link count	user talk link count	distinct user links	max indent level	first timestamp	last timestamp
AN	Current	RfC closure review request at Talk:Kash_Patel#RfC: Whether to call Kash Patel a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence	31633	59	70	59	36	10	2025-02-25 10:43:00	2025-03-16 20:36:00
AN	Current	Is SPI overwhelmed?	33280	61	67	55	52	10	2025-03-03 19:25:00	2025-03-14 20:41:00
AN	Current	Creations by banned or blocked users -- must they always be speedily deleted per WP:G5?	69880	116	131	100	71	11	2025-03-15 09:17:00	2025-03-19 19:07:00
AN	Current	An administrator recall petition for Master Jay has been closed	29134	58	63	47	55	8	2025-03-18 09:26:00	2025-03-19 17:53:00
AN	369	CBAN appeal - Roxy the Dog	57739	113	140	105	85	20	2025-02-14 18:02:00	2025-02-19 07:59:00
AN	369	Request for closure review: Topic Ban of EMsmile	26950	36	40	30	30	8	2025-02-19 12:11:00	2025-02-21 05:24:00
AN	369	Article being reported to cyber police	37064	72	95	72	49	11	2025-02-19 01:03:00	2025-02-21 23:48:00
AN	369	Threats and ad-hominems being used to bully editor	55083	50	57	51	32	8	2025-02-24 03:12:00	2025-02-28 00:06:00
AN	369	Appealing my I-ban	37149	46	58	44	30	17	2025-03-03 14:43:00	2025-03-04 14:25:00
AN	369	Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05	65250	46	49	44	38	12	2025-02-24 07:52:00	2025-03-08 06:01:00
AN	368	Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel	38084	72	64	59	81	7	2025-01-10 08:51:00	2025-01-11 10:33:00
AN	368	Lardlegwarmers block appeal	27741	40	46	37	49	6	2025-01-16 11:00:00	2025-01-17 23:53:00
AN	368	WP:BLPN closures	33888	68	68	70	39	17	2025-01-22 03:24:00	2025-01-24 15:03:00
AN	368	Original author of Lauren Handy refusing to allow new edits without their approval	31587	63	80	59	48	13	2025-01-28 03:53:00	2025-01-31 02:52:00
AN3	490	User:Dustinscottc reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Both users and an IP blocked from page for a week)	30533	45	38	45	17	16	2025-01-02 08:38:00	2025-01-02 16:41:00
ANI	Current	Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath	101858	178	193	167	80	17	2025-03-16 00:21:00	2025-03-19 22:01:00
ANI	1182	Proposal: Big Thumpus is limited to article space	28298	46	47	46	44	7	2025-03-03 10:14:00	2025-03-07 08:15:00
ANI	1182	Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness	33376	69	109	68	34	13	2025-02-19 17:49:00	2025-03-07 23:19:00
ANI	1182	TurboSuperA+ closes	67632	88	103	87	64	9	2025-02-28 09:44:00	2025-03-09 11:14:00
ANI	1182	Harassment and attempted outing by User:CoalsCollective.	60325	70	89	69	43	8	2025-03-04 03:32:00	2025-03-09 21:33:00
ANI	1182	Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility from M.Bitton	45331	54	74	54	36	14	2025-03-04 16:07:00	2025-03-11 11:22:00
ANI	1182	User:Lvivske and slow edit warring	33306	74	74	72	32	16	2025-03-10 06:36:00	2025-03-14 02:36:00
ANI	1182	User:Historyk.ok disruptive editing	30676	16	16	16	12	4	2025-03-10 18:15:00	2025-03-14 21:26:00
ANI	1182	Fahrenheit666 on Fort Moore	30331	59	67	51	21	14	2025-03-12 21:59:00	2025-03-16 20:41:00
ANI	1181	Charliephere	35106	82	81	83	27	25	2025-02-23 05:19:00	2025-02-28 02:40:00
ANI	1181	Raoul mishima and Kelvintjy - slow edit warring and non-communicativeness	25275	48	73	48	24	13	2025-02-19 17:49:00	2025-02-28 07:57:00
ANI	1181	Tracking other users' behavior in userspace	39614	49	66	49	45	8	2025-02-27 10:46:00	2025-02-28 13:53:00
ANI	1181	Heavy bludgeoning	39890	85	115	83	56	20	2025-02-18 02:56:00	2025-03-03 08:15:00
ANI	1181	Non-neutral paid editor	192242	245	246	203	85	12	2025-01-16 20:45:00	2025-03-05 06:45:00
ANI	1181	Intimidation tactics, suppression and other violations from Simonm223	85072	100	115	96	58	9	2025-02-19 23:47:00	2025-03-05 18:24:00
ANI	1181	Pretending blindness and ignoring common courtesy	30265	44	44	44	21	15	2025-03-05 08:59:00	2025-03-05 21:26:00
ANI	1180	User:Bwshen may well be an expert, but insists citations aren't always needed - also COI issues	35022	69	78	66	43	17	2025-02-10 00:42:00	2025-02-17 05:54:00
ANI	1180	Return to behaviour from K1ngstowngalway1	34532	43	52	44	27	8	2025-01-31 07:03:00	2025-02-17 07:16:00
ANI	1180	Bias and NOTHERE by Big Thumpus	62118	108	114	105	50	15	2025-02-13 20:30:00	2025-02-21 01:13:00
ANI	1180	WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:PA by Cerium4B	100614	132	168	121	54	11	2025-02-05 21:01:00	2025-02-21 05:57:00
ANI	1180	bbb23	27713	55	62	59	34	8	2025-02-26 10:50:00	2025-02-27 01:14:00
ANI	1179	User:Hesselp, again (4th ANI notice)	31793	55	58	55	31	14	2025-01-26 18:23:00	2025-02-08 09:21:00
ANI	1179	User:Engage01: 2nd ANI notice	58458	90	106	92	35	10	2025-02-02 11:33:00	2025-02-08 22:41:00
ANI	1179	Harassment and personal attacks	47285	90	94	89	72	9	2025-01-22 07:30:00	2025-02-10 05:49:00
ANI	1179	Off-site harassment from Anatoly Karlin	51665	66	69	65	21	19	2025-02-09 07:47:00	2025-02-11 08:40:00
ANI	1179	Kansascitt1225	53853	51	67	51	49	9	2025-01-26 04:58:00	2025-02-13 07:28:00
ANI	1178	Me (DragonofBatley)	126597	197	238	199	51	17	2025-01-14 06:39:00	2025-01-28 06:08:00
ANI	1178	User:Toa_Nidhiki05: WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.	82047	86	97	59	34	12	2025-01-20 23:40:00	2025-01-29 03:38:00
ANI	1178	Photos of Japan	43181	49	33	70	20	16	2025-01-27 02:10:00	2025-01-30 07:41:00
ANI	1178	Mass Removal of External Links by User:Dronebogus.	38526	72	76	65	45	14	2025-01-23 23:20:00	2025-01-31 03:29:00
ANI	1178	User:Moribundum: incivility and problem editing reported by User:Zenomonoz	69171	58	65	59	26	9	2025-01-28 07:36:00	2025-02-02 09:31:00
ANI	1178	Off-wiki canvassing in relation to Eric Gilbertson and GPS-hobbyist derived data.	48378	98	100	98	34	12	2025-02-01 19:14:00	2025-02-05 06:45:00
ANI	1178	Inappropriate reasons for initial ban + admins refused to remove ban for non specific reasons despite evidence that it was inappropriate	31648	41	47	41	26	14	2025-02-06 00:10:00	2025-02-06 10:08:00
ANI	1177	Stalking from @Iruka13	52795	64	79	59	39	10	2024-11-13 07:18:00	2025-01-19 23:21:00
ANI	1177	Basile Morin, Arionstar and FPC	25243	27	41	29	23	9	2025-01-19 01:32:00	2025-01-20 00:49:00
ANI	1177	User:TTYDDoopliss and gender-related edits	31837	78	83	76	36	13	2025-01-20 23:27:00	2025-01-21 12:18:00
ANI	1177	User:PEPSI697 bad faith towards editors, misuse of tools	31001	36	38	41	27	10	2025-01-15 20:58:00	2025-01-22 05:56:00
ANI	1177	User:Citation bot won't stop adding incorrect dates to articles	41545	73	87	69	46	15	2025-01-14 22:40:00	2025-01-23 22:44:00
ANI	1177	Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations	25492	27	27	27	25	8	2025-01-23 12:48:00	2025-01-26 23:54:00
ANI	1176	Edit warring to prevent an RFC	94644	125	148	127	46	14	2025-01-05 16:37:00	2025-01-11 13:20:00
ANI	1176	Community block appeal by Drbogdan	31109	37	40	36	33	8	2025-01-08 20:06:00	2025-01-11 23:05:00
ANI	1176	Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye	32567	36	40	42	45	8	2025-01-11 08:29:00	2025-01-13 06:44:00
ANI	1176	Cross-wiki harassment and transphobia from User:DarwIn	146741	284	322	258	134	19	2024-12-29 21:02:00	2025-01-14 08:51:00
ANI	1176	Beeblebrox and copyright unblocks	62669	94	104	85	81	12	2025-01-12 15:03:00	2025-01-15 21:00:00
ANI	1176	Uncivil behavior	33757	34	55	36	32	13	2025-01-11 20:19:00	2025-01-16 01:18:00
ANI	1176	User:Jwa05002 and User:RowanElder Making Ableist Comments On WP:Killing of Jordan Neely Talk Page, Threats In Lead	75257	139	174	123	48	10	2025-01-13 14:19:00	2025-01-17 05:49:00
ANI	1176	Incivility and ABF in contentious topics	143823	279	289	277	113	13	2025-01-04 11:19:00	2025-01-19 02:32:00
ANI	1176	User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE	108518	168	210	171	66	14	2025-01-08 09:06:00	2025-01-17 11:52:00
ANI	1175	Complaint against User:GiantSnowman	55566	114	126	112	47	8	2025-01-05 20:00:00	2025-01-08 10:05:00
ANI	1175	Automatic editing, abusive behaviour, and disruptive(ish) wikihounding from User:KMaster888	25024	60	63	48	32	13	2025-01-08 04:53:00	2025-01-09 10:18:00
ANI	1175	Problems with Pipera	27136	16	19	17	19	5	2025-01-08 02:54:00	2025-01-11 07:55:00
AE	Current	Akshaypatill	59292	42	59	37	18	12	2025-02-27 22:50:00	2025-03-07 04:52:00
AE	Current	ImperialAficionado	27457	33	36	39	21	10	2025-02-28 04:32:00	2025-03-11 07:03:00
AE	Current	Hu741f4	34586	29	44	27	14	9	2025-03-05 21:59:00	2025-03-14 00:55:00
AE	Current	3rdspace	56120	71	90	60	33	9	2025-03-09 10:52:00	2025-03-18 00:44:00
AE	Current	Johnadams11	26557	24	34	25	14	6	2025-03-09 16:17:00	2025-03-17 07:45:00
AE	349	Toa Nidhiki05	58745	46	47	35	27	6	2025-02-04 02:04:00	2025-02-18 22:14:00
AE	348	BabbleOnto	40564	40	48	39	33	7	2025-01-14 01:34:00	2025-01-30 04:12:00
AE	348	שלומית ליר	39590	48	46	40	35	4	2025-01-12 01:24:00	2025-02-06 00:32:00
AE	348	Ekdalian	33033	29	29	28	24	4	2025-01-01 22:16:00	2025-02-10 07:28:00
AE	348	Callmehelper	25548	18	26	19	16	7	2025-01-24 02:30:00	2025-02-16 15:01:00
AE	347	PerspicazHistorian	32629	49	71	43	33	6	2024-12-04 22:44:00	2025-01-09 11:34:00
BLPN	366	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar	44475	77	85	77	23	16	2025-01-16 18:34:00	2025-01-25 01:57:00
FTN	Current	Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine	228531	259	320	253	132	17	2025-02-03 04:58:00	2025-03-10 05:01:00
FTN	Current	Is WPATH the gold standard for research on trans healthcare in academia?	85491	103	108	92	66	11	2025-02-05 03:25:00	2025-03-18 03:50:00
FTN	Current	Pathologization of trans identities	279105	345	353	311	71	20	2025-02-07 21:59:00	2025-03-24 09:01:00
FTN	Current	Do RSes need to conform to dictionaries in order for us to use them to call a climate change denialist?	48435	80	82	72	41	12	2025-02-07 23:22:00	2025-03-16 23:42:00
FTN	104	Misandry	25011	41	54	41	35	10	2025-01-12 14:07:00	2025-01-24 23:02:00
FTN	104	Vladimir Bukovsky and the Russian hacker conspiracy	32501	51	52	51	12	25	2025-01-20 13:49:00	2025-02-05 20:44:00
FTN	104	Puberty blockers in children	51122	53	53	52	47	7	2025-02-04 09:06:00	2025-02-21 04:07:00
FTN	104	Is being anti-trans WP:FRINGE?	39088	43	45	38	35	9	2025-02-19 12:09:00	2025-02-21 08:38:00
FTN	103	Gain of function research	34491	57	55	55	28	14	2024-12-16 17:21:00	2025-01-04 13:24:00
NORN	Current	Involve (think tank) alleged controversy with trustee involved in tobacoo industry	40092	45	53	45	21	9	2025-02-07 04:55:00	2025-03-15 23:05:00
NORN	53	White Mexicans and blood type	57824	91	98	94	23	23	2025-01-28 14:42:00	2025-02-13 14:20:00
NPOVN	Current	Geography map dispute	111603	224	238	222	48	20	2025-02-22 08:42:00	2025-03-14 07:10:00
NPOVN	115	2024 United States presidential election	76252	113	126	111	43	15	2025-01-09 05:46:00	2025-01-29 05:28:00
RSN	Current	Is the Cass Review a reliable source?	92087	107	112	105	62	9	2025-02-21 06:50:00	2025-03-19 16:54:00
RSN	Current	When RS make false claims, we do not treat them as true.	47113	48	49	49	26	9	2025-03-17 09:11:00	2025-03-20 01:44:00
RSN	470	SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)	30428	24	25	23	12	10	2025-02-19 06:23:00	2025-03-03 23:23:00
RSN	470	Question as to the reliability/value of a video for inclusion	44848	74	80	71	29	11	2025-03-03 22:56:00	2025-03-05 07:06:00
RSN	470	Request to Include The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam by Bat Ye’or as a Reliable Source	46634	81	80	76	23	14	2025-02-28 03:51:00	2025-03-11 03:50:00
RSN	470	Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline and WP:CIRCULAR	25690	39	20	40	21	11	2025-03-08 08:20:00	2025-03-11 22:50:00
RSN	469	Erin Reed, LA Blade, and Cass Review: Does republication of SPS in a non SPS publication remove SPS?	165288	168	180	168	70	13	2025-01-29 09:24:00	2025-02-25 21:39:00
RSN	469	Use of US government sources after January 20, 2025	48855	64	62	63	61	10	2025-02-15 07:00:00	2025-02-27 07:48:00
RSN	468	The Times of Israel and fake news.	28013	47	45	46	38	8	2025-02-07 16:03:00	2025-02-19 02:15:00
RSN	467	Forbes contributor David Axe	50982	69	70	66	29	17	2025-02-07 21:50:00	2025-02-17 21:46:00
RSN	467	RfC: Jacobin	156406	253	261	229	182	20	2021-07-19 04:10:00	2025-02-21 01:08:00
RSN	466	Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	26393	45	52	45	11	11	2025-01-06 23:22:00	2025-02-04 05:42:00
RSN	466	Hope Not Hate?	36819	66	67	65	25	10	2025-02-01 12:59:00	2025-02-04 19:38:00
RSN	466	pinkvilla.com - reliability disclaimers on pages	26443	37	36	35	25	15	2025-01-28 16:47:00	2025-02-06 14:46:00
RSN	466	pinkvilla.com - reliability disclaimers on pages	26441	37	36	35	25	15	2025-01-28 16:47:00	2025-02-06 14:46:00
RSN	465	GBNews can be reliable for group based child sex exploitation	35552	56	48	46	24	11	2025-01-14 03:20:00	2025-01-19 01:11:00
RSN	465	Pirate Wires?	30789	70	69	67	42	12	2025-01-15 04:42:00	2025-01-26 02:43:00
RSN	465	RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu	51991	83	85	77	31	9	2024-12-31 13:09:00	2025-02-03 22:27:00
RSN	464	Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson	34489	57	58	57	29	21	2024-12-31 10:54:00	2025-01-11 05:26:00
RSN	464	Nigerian newspapers	69908	108	106	103	60	11	2024-12-19 01:29:00	2025-01-17 14:56:00
RSN	464	MintPress News	36761	38	40	38	25	11	2025-01-12 19:58:00	2025-01-16 07:05:00
RSN	463	RFC Science-Based Medicine	89547	174	182	174	81	18	2024-12-06 09:20:00	2025-01-11 18:05:00
RSN	463	Jeff Sneider / The InSneider	72990	78	82	78	19	19	2024-12-21 05:16:00	2025-01-09 03:52:00
RSN	462	RfC: Al-Manar	68771	144	139	136	67	21	2024-11-15 11:08:00	2025-01-03 09:32:00
BN	Current	Resysop Request (NaomiAmethyst)	54289	107	109	96	67	17	2025-03-10 12:06:00	2025-03-19 01:13:00
DRN	Current	The Left (Germany)	31114	42	44	42	22	8	2025-03-07 04:54:00	2025-04-04 03:54:00
DRN	254	Jehovah's Witnesses	26305	34	38	32	13	13	2025-01-19 02:57:00	2025-01-25 20:48:00
DRN	254	Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	37749	40	40	39	10	9	2025-01-01 03:39:00	2025-02-07 23:24:00
DRN	254	Urartu	32378	18	19	16	9	4	2025-01-16 00:39:00	2025-02-13 00:39:00
DRN	253	Autism	353378	287	372	289	34	19	2024-12-20 23:46:00	2025-01-17 16:26:00
VPR	Current	Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?	37898	59	58	55	39	8	2025-02-12 00:13:00	2025-03-19 00:01:00
VPR	217	Reviving / Reopening Informal Mediation (WP:MEDCAB)	50118	47	53	39	50	6	2025-01-25 17:57:00	2025-02-26 02:07:00
VPR	216	RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source	27535	49	51	48	41	9	2024-11-20 23:51:00	2025-01-02 11:10:00
VPR	216	Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus	31533	67	63	50	50	8	2025-01-21 06:17:00	2025-02-02 07:08:00
VPP	Current	Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?	105633	198	181	215	110	16	2025-01-02 08:23:00	2025-03-18 00:48:00
VPP	Current	RfC: Amending ATD-R	61607	103	97	91	46	12	2025-01-24 09:54:00	2025-03-31 09:01:00
VPP	200	Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline	29262	43	44	42	22	7	2025-01-13 22:28:00	2025-01-16 05:10:00
VPP	200	RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation	82006	173	177	149	163	8	2024-12-16 05:14:00	2025-01-20 06:01:00
VPP	200	General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed	28111	38	40	36	38	7	2025-01-22 23:54:00	2025-02-06 03:39:00
VPP	200	The real use case for AI on Wikipedia	27138	55	52	45	41	15	2025-02-10 10:18:00	2025-02-19 09:32:00
VPP	199	LLM/chatbot comments in discussions	262672	408	394	388	251	12	2024-12-02 08:12:00	2025-01-13 12:28:00
VPM	80	Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors	86113	190	192	185	148	12	2025-01-08 07:28:00	2025-01-15 11:27:00
VPIL	Current	What do we want on the front page?	66279	119	124	105	53	12	2025-02-04 06:51:00	2025-03-18 19:50:00
VPIL	Current	Dealing with sportspeople stubs	57898	95	98	94	46	16	2025-02-20 08:29:00	2025-03-08 01:57:00
VPIL	64	Implemeting "ChatBot Validation" for sentences of Wikipedia	31895	61	88	58	40	9	2025-01-06 18:34:00	2025-01-30 23:06:00
VPIL	63	Opt-in content warnings and image hiding	110267	208	216	181	60	24	2024-12-11 15:34:00	2025-01-04 01:07:00

Getting ready; new deadline

Publishing challenge accepted!

I've reset the publication countdown to Friday evening (my time; US Pacific), and have done some copyediting. News and notes is still open for editing if somebody can get more content there. I'd like to declare In the media done, unless something really big comes up. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to run Wegweiser (which populates the module database and enables e.g. the single-talk page to work) because the scripts are on my computer and I will be sleeping in my car today and possibly tomorrow. As a stopgap it is also possible to populate the module database with SignpostTagger. I believe SPS.js is working properly and you should be able to use it without issue. One of the problems a few issues ago was that there was a redirect in the Next issue space, but all other script bugs are fixed. jp×g 🗯️ 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking all the articles as approved but make sure they are c/ed before running (if not already). Particularly the obit needs to have its original authors filled. jp×g 🗯️ 07:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF takedown in Hebrew Wikipedia

See he:Special:Diff/40638036. WMF have redacted - but not oversighted several comments made in 2014, based on a court order. GZWDer (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GZWDer: - thanks for letting us know about this. I'll also send an email to legal and try to get a statement. Just to ask a couple of small specific questions and get any statements you wish to make.

I've tried to get a sense of what this is all about by reading about half of the 68 page file linked at GZWDer's link (just the first 21 pages and the last 8 pages). This note is to let other Signposters see if this is an article that they'd like to write up. It will be difficult IMHO, but has lots of things in it that most editors can relate too.

It doesn't seem to be related to India, heritage, Elon Musk, etc.

This is a first impression of less than half of the above material, and there is no guarantee that it is correct (i.e. something like a draft of a pre-draft first draft written on the back of a napkin)

The story is about a user back in 2014 that seemed to have won a court decision (or maybe it just took a long time to get thru the courts the first time!) But this decision was written very recently. It's all about the HeWiki, nothing about ENwiki, nothing about the current war, apparently nothing about politics (?). The user had some claim to be a productive editor but ran into problems with other editors, something like what an LTA might run into. Defamation settlement (I didn't see any money involved) requires some apologies and removal of material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've provided a reply to your email to legal

wikimedia.org. Cheers, BChoo (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:4 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion reports

A very long time ago, I wrote some software that could retrieve noticeboard/VP threads (active and archived), and parse them for metadata (length, timestamps, users mentioned/signatures present, as well as the actual text etc). I am thinking that this may be useful for outlining skeletons for discussion reports: a script that just answers the question of "what the hell were people talking about the last couple of weeks?"

I think part of the reason this column is hard to write is because it not only requires analysis and writing about the actual discussions, but also a great deal of trawling through mountains of quotidian "hey guys there's a vandal" filings to unearth stuff that actually has an impact on the editing community in some way.

What do you all think of this? jp×g 🗯️ 17:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like "quotidian". But more seriously, maybe we should just start running the scripts and seeing "if you build it, they will come", where they are interested in writing the column. Another idea -- we did an experiment with LLM (AI) summaries in the past, would the EiC be in favor of continuing the experiment with this? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the word "quotidian" also. In French "quotidien" (or "journal quotidien" in full), logically enough, means daily newspaper. Just like the English "daily" for "daily newspaper". I just checked my memory and the Google AI confirmed it. If we want to write more about our daily activities (which I'm not against) we'd probably need at bit of AI (which I'm just a bit skeptical about). Run the bot, store the output where people can browse (but not part of the newspaper), and let people know we have it in case they want to write an article and *check every AI detail*. This may make it more, not less, time consuming, but it wouldn't be a bad experiment. Make sure to label it "AI aided" or similar up top. Now how are we going to make that announcement? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of how the output of such a script would look like concretely? But yes, in generally I agree it would be useful to experiment more with automation there, including LLM summaries (especially considering that technology has progressed quite a bit since e.g. these 2022 experiments), as an intermediate tool followed by manual review. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after quite a bit of sifting through manure and remembering API stuff, I have in my hand a list of 1,395 Village Pump threads from the last couple archives of each, ostensibly since the beginning of this year (although archives on slow-moving boards can go back pretty far). There are some, uh, quirks: mostly that I have not finished writing the software, so it does not work very well and a bunch of stuff is manual.

Nonetheless, sorting by length gives at least a very obvious solid basis for some stuff we could write about. Here are the top 40 for example: jp×g 🗯️ 11:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pump	Section	Size
WP:VPP	LLM/chatbot comments in discussions	263647
WP:VPP	Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS	235898
WP:VPR	RfC: Extended confirmed pending changes (PCECP)	121536
WP:VPIL	Opt-in content warnings and image hiding	110752
WP:VPP	Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?	105874
WP:VPR	CheckUser for all new users	89323
WP:VPM	Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors	86482
WP:VPP	RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation	82290
WP:VPIL	What do we want on the front page?	66420
WP:VPR	Survey (PCECP)	62465
WP:VPIL	Fix Draftification with a new template	62205
WP:VPP	Can we hide sensitive graphic photos?	62089
WP:VPP	RfC: Amending ATD-R	61677
WP:VPP	Administrator Recall	58044
WP:VPIL	Dealing with sportspeople stubs	58043
WP:VPIL	Determining who should be an electionadmin	55386
WP:VPWMF	Will you be moving operations overseas?	53350
WP:VPIL	New users, lack of citation on significant expansion popup confirmation before publishing	52862
WP:VPP	We need to fix the admin recall process	50922
WP:VPM	Is football player contract expires means still registered in a football club?	49909
WP:VPWMF	Responding to Katherine Maher / Uri Berliner Story	47220
WP:VPIL	Avoiding a long month of drama	45770
WP:VPT	VPNgate blocking bot	42663
WP:VPR	Reviving / Reopening Informal Mediation (WP:MEDCAB)	40745
WP:VPM	Reliable sources controversy	39831
WP:VPR	Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?	38023
WP:VPIL	Describing Notability in plain English	34912
WP:VPR	Page views link in the Tools menu	33511
WP:VPWMF	Proposal: WMF should hire a full-time developer to do basic maintenance on MediaWiki	33293
WP:VPIL	Implemeting "ChatBot Validation" for sentences of Wikipedia	32052
WP:VPWMF	Let's configure: Suggested Edits	30274
WP:VPR	Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus	29598
WP:VPP	Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline	29376
WP:VPR	Proposal to update WP:NBAND to be explicitly constrained by WP:GNG	28968
WP:VPP	General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed	28313
WP:VPR	RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source	27733
WP:VPIL	Creating Template:Wikidata Infobox	27288
WP:VPIL	Can we consider EC level pending changes?	27229
WP:VPP	The real use case for AI on Wikipedia	27196
WP:VPR	Redesigning locks and other icons	26566

The links do not work properly because I copied this out of a text file and haven't finished the thing that makes it output correctly, but the general idea is here. Compare to, e.g. a random selection of stuff from e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201, which is almost all stuff of no account, I think this provides a pretty good basis for actual writing. I don't really have time to actually write stuff out of it for this issue, but I think it is at least something. jp×g 🗯️ 11:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does look useful (obviously one would want to confine it to more recent ones; looks like these results go back almost a year or more - but I assume that's on the agenda). I would consider including the number of editors who commented as an additional metric. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is now fixed, and I ran it over everything from 2025 -- sortable table (that counts first timestamp, last timestamp, discussion size, signature count and unique userlinks) is at Special:Permalink/1281329629.

21:4 In the media

I put in a top story for an Anti-Defamation League report that I don't have time to summarize or even read fully. However, I suggest that the writer consider this for incorporation.

ADL applied analytics to the set of what they call 30 bad faith pro-Hamas editors to highlight unusual editing patterns. One result was that they edited more actively than other groups, even a group of editors involved in the PIA topic, and a similarly sized group randomly selected from the 5,000 most active English Wikipedians. The "bad faith" editors as a whole were about 50% more active than the next most active group, measured by total edits over the past 10 years. The top 5 "bad faith" editors were also 40% more active than the next most active group, measured by edits per day undertaken by the top 5 editors in control groups. Evidence said to indicate coordinated editing included a "tandem editing" metric, which looked at edits made by group members within an hour of each other on the same page over the last ten years. In this metric, the "bad faith" group made over 50% more "tandem" edits than the PIA group (71,855 versus 45,925), and almost 150 times as many than the most-active Wikipedians control group (486).

☆ Bri (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Thank you for the suggestion.

By the way, who wrote the other stories? I don't see any reference to that... (tagging @Smallbones and @Bluerasberry for consideration). Oltrepier (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added – S to about half of both halves of Itm. I think they mostly wrote themselves this month, so anybody should remove my initial and/or add their own if they feel like it. The 2 Gaza related stories aren't really my work. BTW, I put my take on the ADL story on User talk:Jimbo Wales which I guess addresses Bri's comment above, but it's not journalism. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE

Template_talk:Press#Does_Anti-Defamation_League,_specifically_Editing_for_Hate:_How_Anti-Israel_and_Anti-Jewish_Bias_Undermines_Wikipedia’s_Neutrality_fit_in_this_template?, if you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]