Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | Newsroom

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MPossoupe (WMF) (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 3 September 2024 (→Who are the 12 candidates running in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/SUBMIT
Submission Desk


The Signpost
The Signpost
(talk  · chat)
Recent changes:
main · talk
Submissions archives
Settings:
Sections are archived by ClueBot III when marked with {{completed}} or {{close}})


Submission desk

Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Submission

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.

Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
  • Column: TDB
  • Author: OpenSexism
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report with a focus on active Wiki Fixup Projects

 
Status:
V ?
Needs clarification
@Kazamzam I'd be curious about what kind of events these projects work on, e.g. drives, and why do individuals affiliate with the projects, when many people engage in these activities uncoordinated? I like your focus/question on bots for example. Choosing multiple projects to profile is atypical, so clarity why you choose the projects you did, would make sense, for example why not copyrighters guild, NPP, AfC (other than fact they're active?) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam also check out the archive for past inspiration, specifically Article rescue squadron. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission:
  • Column: Book review
  • Author: Sgerbic
  • Discussion:

I have written a review of Stephen Harrisons new book "The Editors" and would like to submit for publication here in The Signpost. This is my first attempt to submit to the newsletter and if I am doing this incorrectly I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic. Do you have a link to the draft that you'd like to include here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have it saved in a word doc, can I email it to someone? Sgerbic (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good spot for it might be your userspace. You can create any page you want if you prefix it with User:Sgerbic/. So for example, User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors. See above for more examples :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgerbic: Post soon if you want review for the next issue. Otherwise no big deal, can go into following issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm traveling for a few more days and then I will when I get to my computer.Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made the User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors live. Now what happens? Sgerbic (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a valuable topic for the Signpost. Looking forward to reading the review!
Note that the book is not published yet ("Available August 6th" according to this post by the author, which btw also has some interesting background about the book's genesis that might be worth mentioning).
I know that pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish this review only when the book is actually available to the public. In any case, you might want to disclose that the review is based on an advance copy.
By the way, the "Editorial Reviews" section of the book's Amazon page and the author's own website already highlight a blurb attributed to the Signpost:

“The great Wikipedia novel. There’s a new adventure on almost every page, and it’s hard to stop reading as you fall down the rabbit hole.”

It appears that this quote is taken from a brief note that Smallbones wrote three and a half years ago in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Odd bits, referring an earlier work-in-progress version of the book (then tentatively titled "Infodemic", with Five sample chapters [having been] available here).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Updated blurb attribution HaeB (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and has potential, may be condign to run this alongside the release of the book as HaeB says. jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation Report Take 2

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

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, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles - I see you haven't been active in a hot minute, I hope this ping finds you well! 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. I'm pinging you because another former arb weighed in on this piece[1] and I'd like your input for it since AFAICT you were the leading arb proposing sanctions for Cantor.
  1. Do you believe the committee erred in how it handled Cantor? If so, how/why did it err?
  2. Do you believe it speaks to broader issues with systemic bias and/or queerphobia on Wikipedia?
  3. 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, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: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: 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 lesser known fact. Wouldn't it have been counterproductive for him to edit under his name and push his views? (cc: @JPxG). Svampesky (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) He confirmed it was him in an interview, my bad. Svampesky (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • 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. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Honestly, you had shown pretty bad judgment in this matter already, by (apparently, 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 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.
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, 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, 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, HaeB (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: I am confident in my judgement that this is a very interesting story of interest to Wikipedia. I lack confidence that The Signpost has editorial capacity to publish it. Transgender-related controversy is currently a $multi-billion media investment as political positions on the matter tip top-level elections in countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. The subject matter of this story is bonkers enough to make The New York Times or any other global newspaper of record, with the narrative being "Wikipedia article --> court evidence --> establishment of policy or legislation". I cannot back every claim made here but wow, this is a story which is presenting evidence of political lobbying going through Wikipedia and actually changing law, and the thick wikiness of it does make The Signpost an appropriate venue for making an article submission.
Social norms in The Signpost is a bit different than elsewhere in Wikipedia in that there is some hierarchy here. I am not emotionally invested in any particular outcome here, and I would accept anyone's simple "no" without further explanation, which is not the editorial process for the encyclopedia. I appreciate the courtesy of your explanation, but I have the presence of mind and insight to recognize that this is the kind of story that makes the international news and is as wild as journalism gets.
For the LGBT+ angle, I do not need to push or advocate for this story, but more directly, there simply is no one else in this newsroom who has enough subject matter expertise in LGBT+ issues to be able to confirm that this story passes a minimal sanity check. Overall the story has the appearance of total insanity, but it looks legitimate to me. Nothing goes forward in The Signpost without editorial consensus and obviously there is not the appetite for publishing this article at this time. I did persist after the last rejection because the story was declined for particular reasons which you yourself named. No fault - everything is cool - let's stay chill - but in that previous thread, you asked for fact checking and editorial changes, and in response, I am giving you an additional 40+ hours of editorial labor into this including the work of YFNS, my own critique of much of the text, and the recruitment of non-wiki professional sociologist review to improve this. It is not as if the piece was rejected outright then the same thing got resubmitted, because instead, the article is greatly, thoughtfully, laboriously, changed.
Going forward, here is what I want from you, and from the editor of The Signpost in general. If for any reason, whether emotion, intuition, reasons you do not wish to discuss, or whatever else - you do not wish to approve publishing a piece, then say so, because that is what it means to be the editor of a publication. I think what happened here is that you were being polite to suggest editorial improvements to the piece, and sometime after that, you began to feel that even with those improvements the article was not a match for publication here. That is totally okay. There are other venues for publishing.
As for me being more conspicuous in flagging potentially controversial topics that I find to publish - yes, I agree to that for myself. It is good general advice for anyone, but especially for someone like me pushing hot topics. About me or anyone else avoiding problematic or controversial proposals to The Signpost, I really wish you would reconsider on that. You have veto power, other editors do as well, and there is no shame in rejecting a controversial article. I respect your denial, and I am sorry if you felt the need to justify a denial rather than give a simple "no", but I still think The Signpost is better overall inviting submissions no matter how controversial even if many or most may be denied for any or no reason. The denial is not disappointing to me, but I would like you to reconsider imposing a chilling effect on potentially controversial submissions. Allow them, just reject them. Normalize saying no. If anyone ever does want to publish a hot topic, then the The Signpost would be better positioned to do so if it is known to be selective, and has established a precedent in which editors like YFNS and me respect and accept rejection. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and 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 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, 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 green quotes and instead use standard "quotation marks". In the part where it says 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. Svampesky (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Svampesky (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS: The piece was previously discussed above - your submission was not just discussed in that previous thread on this page, it was 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 the Signpost's editor-in-chief, or pretend that it was merely about some outstanding "suggestions".
Back then, I had asked you on your user talk page to consider the various editing restrictions you remain under in this very topic area. I had suggested that 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 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 here, it does seem interesting that your full GENSEX topic ban - since lifted -appears to have been imposed out of concerns that are quite reminiscent about the current issues with your Signpost submission, e.g. creating near attack articles about people you perceived as anti-trans activists, or approaching [your] editing from a WP:RGW perspective, according to the closing admin.)
At that time, two months ago, you were already engaging in persistent WP:BLUDGEON efforts to overturn that 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 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 pinging 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 sees strong parallels to the 2019 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 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 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 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 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 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, HaeB (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.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. Please, if it's the latter case I invite @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. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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 here: 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. Svampesky (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read minds - On June 6, JPxG wrote on this page that

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 [2][3][4] berating and belittling JPxG for allegedly making a dumb mistake (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 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 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:SEALIONing.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [5]
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: 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. [6] The full remark from JPxG was 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 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 [7] 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[8], 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[9], 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 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). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: 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 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). Svampesky (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 successfully appealed: 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, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YFNS: When I sent that email, I struggled to clearly express my thoughts without causing confusion. Afterward, the above response from @HaeB referenced WP:SEALIONing, which accurately reflects what I intended to convey. Your current restriction, which is broadly construed, could potentially apply to the situation where @JPxG declined the piece, and you then continued to work on it (as in "reverting JPxG's decline by submitting it again"). This is something you should bear in mind and I don't wish for you to face another ban, but I believe that pursuing a report like this may not be beneficial to your case for having the ban lifted. While I understand the ban pertains to articles, your work on a report that will be distributed to hundreds of users via their talk page subscriptions could be perceived as an attempt to exploit a loophole or technicality. The feedback you got from JPxG said 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., and it still reads like a laundry list. So you submitting it again, as a laundry list, could be seen as violating your 0RR. I mentioned that I wouldn't be able to provide an opinion on the content; however, as general advice, I believe Cantor shouldn't be the primary focus of the report, as this risks it becoming dangerously close to a WP:ATTACK page (more specifically, an attack page of a Wikipedia editor; User:James Cantor). My suggestion is that the article should primarily address ArbCom's handling of the case, rather than placing Cantor at the forefront. Svampesky (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Report: The Big Ones

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: —
  • Column: WikiProject Report
  • Author: Joe Roe
  • Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.
I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Wikipedia. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers is one measure of the biggest. Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are not so well known. Besides the ones you named,Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies have their influence.
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. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster's RfA debrief

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

Outreach by me. The content appears solid, though it may benefit from some additional fleshing out and copyediting to align with The Signpost's style. Svampesky (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Svampesky (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Svampesky (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Svampesky (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Twitter

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

A lot of the exact same things to go though. I didn't name the editor who closed the discussion as move to 'X (social network)' in the body, as I don't usually name editors who do things that might be seen as 'wrong' by people who are unfamiliar with WP:AGF. I still linked to the discussions though, so it isn't that hard to find out. In this case, the closer did seem to defend their decision, but I've erred with caution and excluded the name. Svampesky (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the 12 candidates running in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election?

 
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: User:MPossoupe (WMF)/Signpost draft
  • Column: News from the WMF
  • Author: MPossoupe (WMF)
  • Discussion:
    In 2024, the term of four Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end. The Board invites the Wikimedia movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats. This year, 12 candidates from different backgrounds and experiences are running for the seats. In order for Wikimedians to learn more about the candidates and their contributions, would you be open to including this short piece in the next Signpost issue? Ping JPxG. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards MPossoupe (WMF) (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely something we should cover. Made minor changes, mostly adding links to the BoT/election pages, and moved it into the next issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks MPossoupe (WMF) (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=1243745607"