|
::Looks good and has potential, may be condign to run this alongside the release of the book as HaeB says. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::FYI - I am finished fussing with my article and have uploaded a photo of me and my reading helpers to WikiMediaCommons if you want to use it with The Signpost. Thanks all. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
== Disinformation Report Take 2 ==
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Status|Unreviewed}}
*'''Submission''': [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report]]
*'''Column''': Disinformation Report
*'''Author''': {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}
*'''Discussion:'''<br/>
The piece was previously discussed above under ''Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia'' - the premise is an investigation into James Cantor, who's been making headlines for FRINGE anti-trans advocacy in the last few months and edited trans topics on Wikipedia for a decade. I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions and hope it's not too late to go into this week's issue - my apologies for the lateness I bricked my computer Wednesday morning and it took me 36 hours to fix it. I think the piece has been significantly improved by the feedback I received and I can make any additional improvements necessary! Thanks and best regards, [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] - I see you haven't been active in a hot minute, I hope this ping finds you well! <small>Personally, it's a coin-flip for me whether extended wiki-breaks are due to good things going on IRL or extra stress there, so I hope it's the former in your case. </small> I'm pinging you because another former arb weighed in on this piece[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation_report] and I'd like your input for it since AFAICT you were the leading arb proposing sanctions for Cantor.
:# Do you believe the committee erred in how it handled Cantor? If so, how/why did it err?
:# Do you believe it speaks to broader issues with systemic bias and/or queerphobia on Wikipedia?
:# Do you believe there are measures the community/committee can take to prevent such abuse in the future?
:No worries if you don't want to comment (but I'd appreciate a heads up so I know not to wait on it lol). Best regards, [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
<s>:'''Query''' This might sound slightly odd, but what is the evidence that [[User:James Cantor]] is actually [[James Cantor]]? The person had a Wikipedia article and was notable. What is to say that the editor was a random person using his name? On [[Talk:James Cantor]], there is a banner at the top which reads: {{tq|The following Wikipedia contributor '''may be''' personally or professionally connected to the subject}}. Your piece says that [[User:James Cantor]] ''is'' [[James Cantor]] as a {{tq|lesser known fact}}. Wouldn't it have been counterproductive for him to edit under his name and push his views? (cc: @[[User:JPxG|JPxG]]). [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>He confirmed it was him in an interview, my bad. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) </small>
*'''Continued support''' I supported the previous submission titled "Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia" and I support this one as well. I have made more than 50 editorial suggestions to this draft over a few years, and YFNS has both incorporated my suggestions and worked through the meaning of them. Time spent does not equal merit to publish, but this has my personal support. I give that support in part because I especially call for LGBT+ related submissions through WikiProject LGBT+ and Wikimedia LGBT+, where I am active.
:I get that this piece is loaded with surprising takes but I confirm the premises that I note. These include that Cantor as expert paid presenter on anti-trans ideology was active as a Wikipedia editor in promoting that ideology, and that he violated basic wiki editing norms including by using sockpuppets, and that sources indicate that his testimony had impact in the media environment to give scientific credence to anti-trans perspectives. I also recognize that in this case, ArbCom became a gatekeeper in ruling how Wikipedia included this info, and I agree with YFNS that something about the relationship between ArbCom and contentious information is systemically over-focused on escalating conduct as the key issue when here, the result was Wikipedia's overall promotion of anti-trans content.
:My longer term hope for this piece is that it opens our editorial and content review processes more.
:There are so many claims here that the overall piece is challenging to address, so again, I am personally backing it if anyone returns wanting a particular Signpost contributor to take responsibility and blame. That said, Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and neither I nor anyone else can catch all the challenges in a work like this, and I hope that after we find a path to publishing this in some form, more editors propose better ways to explain that case, ArbCom, and the extremely fast-changing social trends in global conversations on gender.
:If any other editors have demands or requests for getting this article in better shape for the Signpost to publish then I will work through those requests with YFNS. Thanks for considering. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]]: Honestly, you had shown pretty bad judgment in this matter already, by (apparently, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1226603453 according to YFNS]) encouraging this submission in the first place despite the author being under community-imposed restrictions (and having previously been banned entirely) in this very topic area, and by expressing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report&diff=prev&oldid=1227249805 your unreserved approval] of it despite serious issues that several other Signpost team members (Headbomb, Bri, JPxG, myself) pointed out afterwards. And in your remarks above I still don't see a lot of awareness for such concerns that IMO continue to make this piece highly problematic for the Signpost.
::{{tq|I give that support in part because I especially call for LGBT+ related submissions}} - that seems to be a bad rationale. The mere fact that a submission is related to a particular topic area should not mean that we run it without regard for issues like BLP etc. To be direct: I know that this is about a political cause that you, like YFNS, feel strongly about. That in itself is not problematic, many of us have such causes that we are very invested in. But it does become an issue when one puts them over community policies, or, in case of the Signpost, journalistic standards. (As a reminder, the Signpost has run multiple other LGTBQ-related stories that are less problematic, including recently the "No Queerphobia" essay originated by YFNS herself.)
::I also can't help noticing that in our current issue, [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-22/News and notes|several Signpost readers raised serious concerns]] about failures regarding journalistic standards in not one but two different stories by you (neither of which involved LGBTQ issues). I know that you have since, to your credit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2024-07-22%2FNews_and_notes&diff=1236192747&oldid=1236186822 acknowledged] these problems, and I continue to value you as a longtime Signpost contributor who has done lots of valuable work. But perhaps such incidents can serve as a reminder to be a bit more conspicuous especially regarding topic areas that you feel strongly about.
::Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 07:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} and {{u|Bluerasberry}}, I'm happy to assist with copyediting, but the content is something I'd struggle to offer an opinion on. I'll draft some notes and have them posted. Consider removing the hatnote {{tq|Note: When used on their own, 'Cantor' refers to James Cantor/User:James Cantor and 'James' refers to Andrea James/User:Jokestress.}}, and opting for their full names being used consistently to avoid confusion. This is particularly important as you mentioned, {{tq|During this, the other editor discovered his identity and took him to the COI Noticeboard for attacking Conway and James, shortly after which he started going by User:James Cantor}}, as I was confused as to which 'James' was being attacked. Also a side note, I think that this being published is likely to cause a reaction from some people. The report I published for the current issue found its way to some 4chan threads and a handful of subreddits on Reddit (note: I use neither 4chan, nor Reddit. I discovered this through Google search results). This is possibly because I namedropped both sites, but is something to keep in mind. Lastly, I would recommend avoiding the excessive use of {{tq|green quotes}} and instead use standard "quotation marks". In the part where it says {{tq|now successfully appealed, obviously[1]}}, is there any way of making the link an internal-wikilink, rather than an external hyperlink? That's just my personal preference. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 00:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Svampesky|Svampesky]] I'd appreciate the help copy-editing! Sorry, I incorporated your suggestions a few days ago but forgot to reply to you here lol. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
*::This is a notification that I'm still going to help with copyediting this. Sorry for the late reply, this comment got buried in my notifications. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|YFNS]]: {{tq|The piece was previously discussed above}} - your submission was not just {{tq|discussed}} [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_7#Anti-trans_misinformation_on_Wikipedia|in that previous thread]] on this page, it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1227520460 rejected]. It's disappointing that you re-posted this here with such a misleading summary. It seems quite clear that you concluded you can simply ignore that decision by [[User:JPxG|the Signpost's editor-in-chief]], or pretend that it was merely about some outstanding "suggestions".
:Back then, I had [[User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist#Your_"Anti-trans_misinformation_on_Wikipedia"_Signpost_submission|asked you on your user talk page]] to consider the [[WP:AEDR|various editing restrictions]] you remain under in this very topic area. I had suggested that {{tq|reflect on how a hypothetical adaptation of these restrictions to the particular collaboration mode of the Signpost might look like}}. In particular the one that says that you are {{tq|limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed}} - considering that the article you submitted here focuses extensively on negative information precisely about what you characterize as such an activist. (Also, as mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1239397680 here], it does seem interesting that your full GENSEX topic ban - since lifted -[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Advocacy_editing_by_User%3ATheTranarchist|appears to have been imposed]] out of concerns that are quite reminiscent about the current issues with your Signpost submission, e.g. {{tq| creating near attack articles}} about people you perceived as anti-trans activists, or {{tq|approaching [your] editing from a [[WP:RGW]] perspective}}, according to the closing admin.)
:At that time, two months ago, you were already engaging in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1227628315 persistent] [[WP:BLUDGEON]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1227524984 efforts] to overturn that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1227520460 decision] by the editor-in-chief ''not'' to publish your submission, and I told you that such tactics, while not article reverts in the sense of your restrictions, may well become similarly disruptive to the Signpost's production process. The response I got from you was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1239397680 entirely ignoring] my suggestion, and instead consisted of yet more bludgeoning and badgering. Since then you have continued this kind of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] behaviour, e.g. [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]-like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1236255675 pinging] [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]], apparently in the hope that his opinion about your piece will differ from JPxG's, etc. Also, when you pinged former arbitrators asking them to spend time providing input on your draft, were you transparent with them about the state of this submission?
:Apropos, I also find it interesting that one of these former arbs [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report|sees]] {{tq|strong parallels to the 2019 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland|antisemitism in Poland]] case, where the committee of the time (which included me) also fucked it up and missed an opportunity to put a stop to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 damaging disinformation targeted against a minority]}}. I don't know if you know this, but the Signpost's coverage of that very topic was extremely controversial last year (with probably the largest volume of pre-publication comments we've ever seen for one story). Lots of editors were attacking us for merely running a review of that peer-reviewed paper, arguing that the review was not critical enough and that it was inexcusable to amplify those researchers' negative characterizations of some editors involved in the controversy. In that case, I supported the publication of the piece (after careful examination of those objections and addressing some valid points), arguing that we were merely reporting and commenting on allegations that had already publicized in a peer-reviewed academic journal. But in case of your piece, I don't see such a defense. Rather, lots of its claims and characterizations of the main character appear to be your own, and as discussed, you are an editor with a highly problematic history about this very topic (even when taking into account your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1227511659 clarifications] that your accusations of pedophilia apologia against the subject of your Signpost submission here on the submission page were not intended to be part of the article itself, and that the allusions in your bolded note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1226940611 here] may or may not have been about the use of physical violence on your part).
:As I said about in the previous thread about this submission: We should {{tq|make extra sure that if someone covered in the piece with their real name feels inclined to take legal action (or file a complaint arguing that some of the text is a UCoC violation), we can justify every sentence if needed and have nothing to regret}}. At many journalistic publications, this would be the kind of text where the [[managing editor]] notifies the legal department for pre-publication vetting. Your behavior and editing history does not inspire confidence about this at all. It is clear that you feel very strongly that this is a very bad {{tq|FRINGE anti-trans }} person, and that you do not mind engaging in behavior that's disruptive to the Signpost's editorial process in order to use the Signpost to widely publicize your negative views about this person.
:To be clear, if JPxG wants to change his mind and take the responsibility for publishing this piece with its BLP, reputational and possibly even legal risks for the Signpost, I'm not going to stand in his way. But if he wants to uphold his decision, he has my full support. The fact that we welcome opinion pieces from various perspectives (including sometimes controversial ones) does not meant that we should feel obliged to spend indefinite amounts of time and risks in support of particular contributors' advocacy goals, especially with such clear BLP implications.
:Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 02:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ping|HaeB}} I've repeatedly asked for clarification if the submission being rejected meant 1) rejected in this issue and it needs rewriting for resubmission or 2) the signpost will never publish this no matter how much editing and review it goes through. I've been led to believe it's the former, and given Smallbones comment at the newsroom I wouldn't characterize it as a meritless attack piece. We have multiple high quality RS that say this person makes a living promoting "anti-trans misinformation/disinformation" in those exact terms, that is not my opinion but a widely shared view by RS.<small>I'll also note for the record that the majority of the community opposed that ban, which was started by a forum shopping sock from WPO, and the closing admin said they may have read consensus poorly and given undue weight to accusations against me, but that's another story.</small> Please, if it's the latter case I invite {{ping|JPxG}} to just say so because I have rewritten the piece repeatedly since my original submission under the impression it was the former. If JPxG tells me plainly it will never be published no matter what, I'll drop it permanently, but I can't read minds. Please don't mistake my ignorance about the more opaque parts of how signpost submissions work with malice. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]]: I will help with the copyediting as I committed to, but that is not an endorsement of the piece, per me saying [[Special:Diff/1236675297|here]]: {{tq|but the content is something I'd struggle to offer an opinion on}}. It is a fact that the piece targets a Wikipedia editor, [[User:James Cantor]]. So I'll help with copyediting (as a neutral role of being a Wikipedian/Signposter); but I'm unable to give a solid support or oppose its publication. As such, there is a high chance of the page being [[WP:G10]]'d within minutes of it being published. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 03:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I can't read minds}} - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom%2FSubmissions&diff=1227520460&oldid=1227511659 On June 6], JPxG wrote on this page that
:::{{tqb|the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career. The department for the piece is "Disinformation report", it's got a high resolution picture of him as the lead image, and it's got "Anti-trans advocacy on Wikipedia" in big text right over that picture. I think this is too much of an argumentative piece for the Signpost to run, especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to.}}
:::As far as I can see, your main reactions to this feedback were to 1) remove the photo, and 2) repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&diff=prev&oldid=1227524984][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=1227628315][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist&diff=prev&oldid=1227742583] berating and belittling JPxG for allegedly making a dumb mistake ({{tq|a case of mistaken identity which he has yet to clarify}}) in the last sentence (whereas it seems quite clear to me that it was rather you who misinterpreted the intended meaning of "ongoing dispute" and "heavily involved party" there). Yes, you made a few changes to the draft afterwards, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report&diff=prev&oldid=1229286812 removing] one sentence about pedophilia. But the current version still very well matches JPxG's June 6 observation of being "almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light".
:::Yet you opened this new submission thread claiming {{tq|I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions}}. I'm still trying to assume good faith here, but this kind of behavior is becoming indistinguishable from deliberate [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] [[WP:SEALION]]ing.
:::Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I rewrote almost the entire article in the intervening time to try and tone it down, remove mentions of Jokestress per the notes of multiple editors, tone down the writing style, adding more RS and context, noting more arbitration cases he was involved in, etc [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1236802408&oldid=1227327782&title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report]
::::I did not berate and belittle him, I asked for clarification, because never once on Wikipedia have a seen a single snowball AFD from months ago described as evidence somebody is part of an "ongoing dispute" or is "heavily involved". Blueraspberry also sought to clarify this: {{tq|Recognize that YFNS is a Wikipedia editor of about 2 years. There was some misunderstanding, and I can vouch that this user came years after the 2013 ArbCom ruling, and was not part of that.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_40#20:8_Disinformation_report] The full remark from JPxG was {{tq|This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that)}} - Frankly I'm still confused what I'm "omitting" since that "throwaway remark" was {{tq|In 2024 [2 years after his ban] I successfully nominated Feminine essence concept of transsexuality for deletion on the grounds it was a clear POV fork where half the citations never discussed the concept and the other half was letters to the editor from Cantor, Blanchard, and Bailey.}} which summarized ''all'' my interactions with him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report&oldid=1227904655] I've even asked how I can disclose it even further.
::::Please, have some sympathy for the mixed signals I'm getting: Blueraspberry thinks the piece needed review to be Signpost worthy, Headbomb gave me advice on how to refocus the piece[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_40#20:8_Disinformation_report], and various editors have chimed in with specific issues I've tried to address. When JPxG rejected it, he did not delete it, he moved it to signpost drafts[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report&diff=prev&oldid=1227904655], which I assumed meant it needed work and could be published at some point in future. And Smallbones, the past EIC, and the regular author of disinfo report (who I pinged because I was hoping he would help me rewrite the piece to be up to Signpost standards since that's his beat), said {{tq|Disinformation report - I've been asked to comment and been meaning to. There's lots of stuff I like in the submission, e.g. a detailed argument about why the topic is important, lots of detailed evidence. But I've never had the time to go all the way through it, or I've lost interest by the time I get half way through. This is a real problem. Heaven knows it should be a good article, but if a disinformation report loses my interest half way through, I suggest that most of our readers will also lose interest. The argument and the evidence is too detailed.}}
::::For the record, I'll take that advice and try and get it published somewhere else because I'm sick of being accused of bad faith for transparently seeking review and revision - I don't know why seem insistent on assuming bad faith on my part for innocuous things (like asking smallbones from a review and help writing the piece, or trying to figure out if "submission rejected" means "permanently" or "until the issues are addressed"). I thought the community might want to know multiple high quality RS have repeatedly said that somebody pushes "anti-trans misinformation/disinformation" and note what they don't, which is he edited trans topics on WP for a decade before a block for COI editing/socking. It's not everyday the SPLC calls a Wikipedia editor part of a clique who push conversion therapy like cures.
::::For the further record, I'd have been more than happy with any member of the signpost team axing half the article to salvage it because I know I can run verbose. I just wanted this piece to be worthy of the Signpost because I feel you do important work here and wanted to help - frankly I feel quite hurt you keep taking my attempts to improve the piece as trying to subvert the Signpost or evade my ban or RGW (which you keep saying while ignoring RS agree he is known for anti-trans [d/m]isinformation). [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist]]: {{tq|evade my ban}}? What restrictions do you currently have? I can't find it in anything in your logs/block log? You said in the piece that it was {{tq|successfully appealed}}. Can you provide a link to it and I'd be better informed on whether you are violating it or not with this piece. As I said over email, I really don't want this to cause you to get another ban, (but I wasn't aware that there is ''currently'' one in place). [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 18:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not a ban, just editing restrictions, I misspoke. HaeB keeps bringing up the ban and restrictions and has argued I am going against the spirit of them. The relevant ones are linked by {{tq|successfully appealed}}: {{tq|a 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed}}
::::::I saw your email, and appreciated the sentiment, though spent a while scratching my head trying to figure out where the disinfo report supposedly contained disinformation given I've had at least 5 different reviewers checking it at various points. If you can spot specific instances, please send a follow up email with them.
::::::However, it's a moot point I suppose because I'm going to try and take it elsewhere. There is the possibility JPxG will take a look at the revisions and comments from users like Smallbones and be inclined to heavily trim it then publish it, but I'm not betting on that. I've already wasted weeks writing and rewriting the piece and trying to get feedback on it while my motives are insulted and don't want to subject myself to that anymore. If any editor has suggestions for the piece or wants to take it over and rewrite it I'll help if asked, but otherwise I'm done, this is too stressful and I don't want more insults. Best, [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
== WikiProject Report: The Big Ones ==
::Among all of these, [[:d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games]] is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
== HouseBlaster'sParis RfA debrief2024 ==
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Status|Unreviewed}}
*'''Submission''': [[User:Hawkeye7/Paris 2024]]<!--Or link to where you intend to write it-->
*'''Submission''': [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/HouseBlaster's RfA debrief/Op-Ed|HouseBlaster's RfA debrief]]
*'''Column''': Op-EdSerendipity
*'''Author''': {{u|HouseBlasterHawkeye7}}
*'''Discussion''':<br/>This piece is about my experience as Wikipedian in Residence at the [[2024 Summer Paralympics]] in Paris [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 13:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Discussion:'''<br/>
Outreach::'''Support''' byto mepublication. TheGallery contentand opinion are both occupied for the appearsnext solidissue, thoughso itSerendipity mayseems benefitlike froma somefit, additionalper fleshing[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia outSignpost/2024-09-04/Serendipity|Clovermoss' andpiece]]. The headline {{tq|What it was copyeditinglike to alignbe witha TheWikipedian Signpost'sat stylethe 2024 Paralympics}} might be better suited, {{tq|Summer}} seems redundant. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 2214:3209, 817 AugustSeptember 2024 (UTC)
:::Feel free to change the headline as you see fit. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:HouseBlaster|HouseBlaster]], I think it would be best to include Doug's response in the report to provide context for the reader. However, this is ''your'' debrief. It currently sits in my sandbox, so I'll add it to the report if you're okay with it. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:HouseBlaster|HouseBlaster]], I also think it would be best if it was added by a copyeditor and not by yourself. So I'll add it to the report if you approve. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*I'm 99% sure this now qualifies as a 'debriefing' as it is an established published 'thing', as opposed to someone giving a 'debrief' to a smaller group of people in their userspace. As such, I've changed the title to 'HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing'. This needs to be checked. [[User:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">Svampesky</span>]] ([[User talk:Svampesky|<span style="color: #008080">talk</span>]]) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
| 