Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin

Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

June content

Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration report

This de-sysop is kind of a big deal as it involves a long-term admin abusively editing while logged out. Maybe starting now on how to present it in The Signpost would be a good idea. - Bri.public (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Bri.public (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record de-sysops

Someone claimed this month has had the most, or second-most, de-sysops ever, not including the purge of inactives. Might be worth looking into. Also, at least one resignation & one "office action" (?) de-sysop related to the Fram discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're watching WP:BN, Bri? As we speak there are four admins there resigning their tools over this affair. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yes - Bri.public (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By my counting, ten have resigned this month including a sysop+bureaucrat. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting in a crowded room

There is a controversy at WP:FRAM. I did not go there to share any particular position, and have no opinion to express here.

However, when there is a crowded forum of controversy, I think it is a good idea to go there and recruit writers for The Signpost. It is better for someone in that room to write the article summarizing it and they can report here.

Here is my recruitment pitch for this case - Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Request_for_volunteer_journalism_for_The_Signpost.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a former editor of the Signpost, I would hope that the current leadership is cognizant of the editorial distance a topic like this really needs. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Starting research at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary, thanks @Seraphimblade, Starship.paint, and Swarm:, with special thanks to Starship for particularly responding to my request for someone to start a Signpost submission. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to share my work with the Signpost, though I won't be writing the submission. Do note that I'm still updating my summary (even the earlier writings). starship.paint (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone copied an old version of what I wrote to that page. The up to date version is at User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No markup duplication anymore. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the reporter(s) who will be writing this

I've been watching this story almost from the beginning but probably haven't read half of whats been written and still can't make heads or tails out of it. There are a lot of conspiracy theories being thrown about, but no proof of anything yet that I can see. There are 3 legitimate issues that I see (there may be more)

  • many members of the community are worried that the WMF has given itself the right to micromanage enWiki, cutting out ArbCom.
  • The issue of harassment and how we stop it, "unblockables" might be part of this
  • Accusations against Raystorm, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, of cronyism, general accusations of corruption at the WMF (nothing specified though)

Being at something of a loss of what's really going on here, I think we have to fall back on the basics and remember journalistic ethics.

  • Assume good faith for all participants, at least until something is proved against them
  • Just report straight facts, e.g. we can report a quote that somebody said something, but if it is an unproven accusation we should definitely ask them what type of proof they have, and note if there is no evidence. Or just leave it out if there is no evidence.
  • This might be reported as a conspiracy within the WMF to grab power from the enWiki community. We're not going to report that unless we have a detailed set of facts to support it.
  • Alternatively, it might be reported as another Wiki lynch mob getting riled up over nothing. We're not going to report that unless there are very hard facts that support that view.

The above will keep us constrained to reporting the news, but looks more like a list of what we can't do than what we should do. So we should:

  • get a list of at least 8 people, on all sides of the issue, and email them to see what the think is going on - and remember to ask for evidence.
  • Go over some of the history of office actions and get some numbers, type of cases and penalties.
  • There's likely a few other things that will come up as we proceed.
  • I'll suggest we gather info for a few days. We've got 2 weeks to deadline - we can write it all up next week

I won't be writing the article, but will keep in close contact with the editors.

Any volunteers?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on "Accusations against Raystorm" being a legitimate story topic. If the accusations against her die out over the next week because of a lack of evidence, then we probably should not report it. But if some credible evidence appears, then we almost have to report it - The Chair of the Board of Trustees does not get a special break from us, neither is she going to be made the target of an unsubstantiated smear here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably be involved in some way. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pythoncoder:. Are you willing to take the lead? make sure that a story worthy of The Signpost and our community is reported. Should we ask for another person to support you (or to take the lead)? Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion with the E in C, I started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report – but do not intend to make this a solo effort. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due to busyness in real life, I have not been able to work on this as much as is ideal. I apologize for the inconvenience. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically done. I may have an hour or so to return to tidy things before publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: So I had started something about this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes - should I cut it? Just include a 1 paragraph "here is what happened action A B C, see discussion report for more"? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, it looks like the other timelines that have been written up. If you want me to include a link at the end of my article along with the others, would that be OK? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: no, I'll just remove it and do a 1 sentence summary; no need to have the timeline in N&N in addition. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I learnt as an editor and journalist is that you can't create a truly superb magazine without rattling someone's cage.The Signpost should not be afraid to express opinion; it is not under the obligations of Wikipedia articles to be neutral and unbiased. It should strive to offer compelling reading and good prose that are more than bland reporting of facts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudpung, I thought about that a lot when I was writing up the Discussion report. I wanted it to be mostly factual, but more interesting than a plain timeline. Of course, in selecting stuff for a page or two, out of a novel's worth of words, it inherently takes the flavor of my own thinking. Which I'm OK with of course. Just hope I'm not straddling the fence too much. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion regarding the quote from Raystorm: I think her Gamergate comparison could use more context. Could you consider including more of Raystorm's statement, i.e. "She has since then been under relentless public examination, with a deep look at her past,... her personal relationships, and even people going through Commons and elsewhere to find pictures of her and pictures of me and posting them externally."[1]? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I intentionally left out the bits about the accused. Rehashing the he said/she said wasn't really meant to be the focus of this portion of the issue. Perhaps the E-in-C is working on something else that can bring that out more. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Need to update re WJBscribe giving Fram admin rights again --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that the public examination that Raystorm described actually occurred. I agree we should leave out the question of whether the examination dug up anything of relevance. But if we don't mention this fact somewhere, readers will be much less able to understand why Raystorm brought up Gamergate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Now that I've written the meat of the piece, I have very few hours to polish. Can anybody provide constructive feedback on where I may have lost the reader? My train of thought was kind of scattered while reading the debates and writing notes; now it's hard to read it with fresh eyes. Also, can anyone confirm that GB fan retired as a result of it? I thought I had a reason for noting him or her and although the timing is right, can't seem to find it now. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, You've pulled off a Herculean task in getting this done!!! Thank you for stepping up and congratulations on surviving it. I will look at it for flow. I looked at GB fan's recent contributions in Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk, and User Talk spaces and couldn't find anything to indicate that he/she retired as a result of this issue. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bri, I'm planning to make non-controversial copyedits directly to the draft, and bring up any more substantive issues here. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed differently. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a round of copyediting and adding some clarifying details. A few things that jumped out at me are:
  • "Wheel war" as a section heading: This term is wiki-jargon and there are varying opinions on whether wheel warring actually occurred. Maybe retitle the section to something more descriptive, such as "Administrators and bureaucrats take action" or "WMF actions reversed"?
  • "Out of this crisis has emerged not just strikes...": This is the first mention of strikes, but is worded as if strikes had been discussed earlier in the article. I suggest replacing it with a summary of what did emerge, e.g. "Out of this crisis, several editors have chosen to protest the actions of the WMF or the community by going on strike, relinquishing their administrative or other rights, or retiring from Wikipedia."
  • Do we say "WMF has a unique role" or "The WMF has a unique role"? I think the latter sounds more correct and natural.
Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bri: re: special:permalink/903718002: there have been changes to the page WP:OFFICE since you've written your report (as it was erroneously tagged as a procedural policy as opposed to a WMF policy, which it arguably became in 2017). I'm not sure the best way forward; you may wish to use a permanent link or a link to meta:Office actions, instead. –xenotalk 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User reporting system consultation

Hello Smallbones and all, I would like to provide some more information about the invitations that I did to participate in the User reporting system consultation, so that the Signpost article can describe more accurately the broad range of users who were invited to participate. This is important because people are expressing a concern about not be aware, and I would like for people to have good information so that they can draw their own conclusions.

A summary of notifications: At the beginning of April an email was sent to Wikimedia-L, the main mailing list for the Wikimedia movement. Around the same time, a similar email was sent to local language Arbitration Committees (including ENWP ARBCOM), Stewards, English Wikipedia functionaries, Community health Strategy 2030 working group. Or relevant members were notified on wiki. Additionally, me and other members of Trust and Safety team contacted Wikimedia affiliates both on and off wiki (by email, social media, etc.) I also mentioned the URS consultation during when speaking to a Train the Trainer session and other meetings. I discussed the User reporting system with the media several times in recent months, including the University of Washington video and New York Times. These notification about the URS all happened during the last 3 months or so. Previously, the URS has been discussed at conferences and on pages about the Community health initiative's work.

Also for over an year, several pages on ENWP described the research the Anti-Harassment tools team has done about reporting harassment.

Next steps related to the User reporting system: As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the User reporting system consultation paused when the Anti-Harassment Tools team product manager left the Foundation. And shortly there after, the consultation was put on hold until the priorities of Foundation's Medium Term Plan were determined and a new timeline is set. While this is happening, I will work with other members of the Anti-Harassment Tools team to capture the ideas and questions written during the recent on wiki discussion about managing cases of harassment. And I'll continue to follow the ArbCom case (or RFC.)

I hope this information is helpful. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage

It might be too late for the deadline, but this new BuzzFeed News article covers this subject in detail:

Bernstein, Joseph (June 27, 2019). "The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved June 27, 2019. The once-derided open-source encyclopedia is the closest thing the internet has to an oasis of truth. Now a single-user ban has exposed the deep rifts between Wikipedia's libertarian origins and its egalitarian aspirations, and threatened that stability. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl= (help)

— Newslinger talk 00:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it, the only thing I can think of doing with it at this late date is put it in ITM. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BuzzFeed article is the best summary of events to date. Balanced, and compelling reading, it's a model of the kind of journalism that would sell The Signpost well, but only if the trolls could be made stay away from the comments sections, or if The Signpost like most other news media and blogs were to be selective of the posts and 'readers' letters' they publish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly informed by insiders, it reads like a worked shoot to me. I find it disreputable to air grievances to our journalist friends simply to gain the upper hand in an argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly concur with Kudpung. And it makes two important points. The accomplishment of anonymous volunteers was to produce the default global encyclopedic resource on any known topic, so impressive that numerous other for-profit sites feed off it. Then, despite the fact that 'Wikipedia has so far escaped the fate of the other user-generated content giants, now locked in public, years-long, brutally specific battles over content policies and moderation', 'with one decision, the Wikimedia Foundation seemed to have plunged the project into the familiar world of strikes and suspensions, martyrdom and harassment.' That is a remarkable accomplishment. If all this rumour-mongering about the putative 'toxic environment' occasionally seen over 18 years, on anecdotal evidence culled from a smidgeon of 82,778,598 registered users creating 5,870,000 articles, were true, Wikipedia would never have got off its feet. None of the other anxiously monitored social media, with their courtesy codes, ever got within a light-year's distance of that amount of done work, and now we are asked to radically alter a working culture that actually churns out information into primarily a comfort zone for sensitive people. I doubt whether the bureaucrats issuing the new ukaz stressing Höflichkeit über Alles have even had the time or curiosity to read Robert Hughes's Culture of Complaint where the idiocy of what he thought of as a 'peculiarly American habit' of obsessing with the formal proprieties by insisting on euphemism, was surgically dissected to bring out its pathologies. Here's one relevant quote

We want to create as sort of linguistic Lourdes, where evil and misfortune are dispelled by a dip in the waters of euphemism. . .Just as language grotesquely inflates in attack, so it timidly shrinks in approbation, seeking words that cannot possibly give any offence, however notional. We do not fail, we underachieve. We are not junkies, but substance abusers, not handicapped, but differently abled. And we are mealy-mouthed unto death; a corpse, the New England Journal of Medicine urged in 1988, should be referred to as a “non-living person.” By extension, a fat corpse is a differently sized nonliving person.' Robert Hughes Culture of Complaint, (1993) Harvill 1994 pp.20-21 Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a worked shoot... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Executive Director comments

Obviously WP:FRAMBAN § Katherine Maher tweet merits inclusion, but I'm out of time to contribute. If anybody active here wants to add it and add their name as co-author to Discussion Report, I don't object. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it's an important development but this current issue needs to be published. At some point we have to stop adding new details in the interests of not being late. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, I'm not proposing any more schedule changes. The column is done for my part, just added one closing quote this morning. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maher has also started replying on their ENWP talkpage [2]. Unless I'm very mistaken, this is their first post to ENWP since 2016. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News

New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this week's newest Wikimedia movement affiliate, the Wikimedians in Thailand User Group as a chapter 'Wikimedia Thailand', on 24 June. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Acknowledged, meta:Wikimedia Thailand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be ready to publish on time

... or with a slight delay. This is a very challenging issue. Could somebody help polishing and copyediting the Discussion report? @Bluerasberry: will your report be ready? I'll be working on a Special report that still needs a lot of work, so any copyediting, help with ITM, etc. would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - since the deadline clock is again giving different dates on different pages - copy deadline 23:59 Friday UTC June 28. Publication deadline a day later. So please follow the clock on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Signpost draft doesn't track with Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline. I don't know why. I'm standing by. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: I worked on News & Notes (brief summary of FRAM, admin changes) but likely won't be able to work significantly on Tech Report if that was expected of me --DannyS712 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If  Doing... the tech report now - it'll be a rush job with TechNews and bots, further contributions are welcome DannyS712 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we doing this on time? If not I would appreciate having till 29 June Saturday 23 UTC, which is one additional day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copy deadline 23:59 UTC Saturday June 29

I'm running behind myself (very much). Let's try for 11:59 UTC Sunday for publication, i.e. only a 12 hour delay there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows: the writing deadline is in one hour, and we are about to be in the final copyedit push for publication. Publication deadline is one minute before 5, 6, 7 or 8 AM Sunday in continental U.S. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request assistance - election reports

As previously mentioned, I have these election reports to share.

I am done with them and will be doing some review and copyedit of the other parts. I would appreciate anyone who can review and position these for publication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I am a bit anxious about not having these inserted into the publishing staging platform. I expect you know how to do that, but I am not quite sure how that works or if there is other labor I could do. I think these are orderly. I know we are at the last hour - I have done some copyediting of other content this morning but was about to go for coffee break. If there is more that I can do or if you note an issue then ping me. You have my support in all decisions you make. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Smallbones and Bluerasberry: It looks like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed was never copyedited nor marked for approval. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: What do you think should happen in response to that? I might be able to do something. I can acknowledge a lack of process here otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it and copyedited User:Bluerasberry/2019 ASBS results last night but forgot to move it to OP-Ed. The other one User:Bluerasberry/2019 ASBS results I just missed entirely. If it is ok with everybody let's just do the first one (which is approved) and leave the second one out. @Bluerasberry and Chris troutman:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Okay, I can make the second one a submission proposal for next month's issue. Let's just do the one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BR. Everything should be ready to go as far as I see. Let's boogie! @Bluerasberry and Chris troutman: Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community view

I re-did the community view piece to retain history (WP:Cut and paste move repair). Pagemovers can do this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In The Media

breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/28/wikipedia-editors-revolt-over-sites-ban-of-veteran-administrator/ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tech report

Request that this be added – "Introducing Wikimedia Space: A platform for movement news and conversations" [3]. Open since June 25, registration via Phabricator account, appears to be public alpha. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a big issue

In a couple places there are people mentioning the upcoming issue of The Signpost in reference to the Fram reports. I also expect that our writing has had the WMF board's attention already. We should try to make this as professional as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You won't. There isn't time. There is just too much going on now that it's spilled over on to Maher's talk page and forced her to reply. Best just give it a brief mention and do a proper article for next month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As professional as possible given the time constraints, then. I agree, the ED comments are crucial and our lack of reporting on them at all doesn't look good. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: I have trimmed my summary of Fram in News&Notes to just the bare basic facts, to avoid any bias in what is included. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to pull the string, one way or another. Publish as scheduled above (in about 12 hours?) or wait one more day. We can't wait forever and waiting trows off people's schedules etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is everybody ready?

Well no, not yet, but I think we can beat the 11:59 UTC schedule (in about 8.5 hours) @Chris troutman: will you be ready? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the anticipation! I'm looking forward to seeing how you frame recent events. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Fram article issues

  • Five of these respondents complained to T&S about him, or informally informed Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. - this is vague. It would be better to split these categories apart if your sources allowed you to. starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram then answered complaints he believed might have been made by ten named editors. - what does this mean? Fram came up with a list of ten editors which Fram believed complained to T&S? Then Fram came up with (and rebutted) supposed complaints from these ten editors? starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer to your last 2 questions is "yes". This email, which Fram sent to me (a copy of his text, not the emails to Fram from T&S) and released for publication here with some conditions, is IMHO bizarre. So imagine T&S, which has some "regulatory authority" here, sends you an email saying essentially "We've had some complaints about your editing in certain areas. Sorry we can't give you specific names of the complainants". What would you do? Most people would likely respond something like "Sorry for that, I'll try to do better in the future." Fram somehow came up with a list of ten names and then started attacking most of them. It almost seems like a confession. If his goal was to assure T&S that he was not harassing editors, he must have failed miserably. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that User:Winged Blades of Godric has removed (twice) something he doesn't like in the draft of Smallbone's article. My only contact with this editor (I presume an admin) occurred when he bullied me a few weeks ago. Just what authority does he have to censor the Signpost without even raising the matter with SP staff? It undermines the whole notion of independent journalism. Tony (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editor, me? I don't recall any contacts with you, months ago (my emphasis). But I might have forgotten something, care to link, kindly? ∯WBGconverse 09:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As far as I know, the Signpost is yet to be the new ArbCom to document private evidence. Thus, stuff like these, which cast completely opaque and un-evidenced aspersions on Fram, by accusing him of having helped someone in propagation of sexual harassment, lie firmly in the territory of gossip-journalism. If you wish to insert it, please vet it via functionaries/ArbCom and obtain their consent, as to the accuracy. Also, WP:LIBEL is a policy with legal considerations.∯WBGconverse 09:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're on deadline and I'm on my final rounds as editor-in-chief making approvals. At this stage this is exclusively the decision of the editor-in-chief whether to publish. If you'd like to take this to ArbCom after we publish that's up to you. But if you censor this article, be prepared to see it all over the news on the internet. It is after all licensed CC By-SA and there are plenty of copies around. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones: - what's the point of posting a preview/draft if you won't answer any queries? Yger posted it on WP:FRAM, so I assumed you were looking for feedback, actually. starship.paint (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The draft is meant as a place for staff to work on the article. Having people coming in censoring on the deadline is not part of it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones: - I have two questions at the start of this section. Could they be answered after you publish? starship.paint (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll take a bit to get back to you. Give me 10-15 minutes but 1) there are borderline cases (e.g. perhaps both) - the details don't matter for the overall sense - vauge is just as good. 2) that really is something bizarre Fram responding that way isn't it? But it means what it says. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones: - okay on issue (2). Issue (1) does have ramifications when you keep it vague versus specific. Let's say, there were 4 editors who went to T&S, and 1 to ArbCom. One can conclude that it seems that T&S is the much preferred route for editors to take (maybe even that community processes have failed to inspire confidence). Let's look at it the other way, there are 4 editors who went to ArbCom, and 1 to T&S - then someone might question with so many editors going to ArbCom, why wasn't action taken? We could have 3 categories to be specific: 1 is T&S, 1 is ArbCom, 1 is both. starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signpost staff, EiC, blah blah. You are taking your position a bit too seriously and inflatedly. If I don't get to hear from you, this is going the AN way.∯WBGconverse 12:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware that I had extensive correspondence with Fram on this article and he had several chances to reply to the contents. He did not express any strong feelings on the essentially complete version that he saw yesterday. In particular there was one response from him, our final correspondence on the article yesterday "feel free to post it". Now if Fram doesn't object to the article being published and has said absolutely nothing to me about WP:LIBEL, then I don't think anybody should presume to take his place here. (updated) Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reprint what I said in my first "From the editor column" in April. Note that I'd consider censorship of The Signpost a "constitutional issue" for us, so I'd prefer that any complaints go to ArbCom. Also I am the main (but not exclusive) contributor to this article so there should be no question of any complaints are against me User:Smallbones, not The Signpost in general. We're publishing the story. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An important part of the EiC job is to ensure that The Signpost follows Wikipedia's rules and to read every word in every article to make sure violations of our policies and guidelines do not happen. If you believe there is a violation, please politely inform us on the article's talk page. I'll take every such report seriously, even if I disagree with you. If there is no satisfactory response, please email me directly and I'll try my best to make sure that any violations are corrected. This promise is not a guarantee that I'll take the actions you request. I will not censor a contributor's opinion simply because you disagree with it.

"All Wikipedia users have the right to take any further complaints to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents or the arbitration committee, but please remember that your complaint will be against me, since I am in charge of compliance with Wikipedia's rules, and not against our writers, staff or other contributors."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute problem

To editors Smallbones, HaeB and FULBERT: At the bottom of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research there's "Expression error: Unexpected < operator". Can we troubleshoot that? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: it looks like this edit fixed it, so it seems to have been a problem with this template (happened in previous months too). Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Smallbones and Evad37: The Dry-run has repeatedly failed. I'm troubleshooting. I may have to do this manually. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that. We obviously have to spend some time after this to make sure it doesn't happen again, but I'm sure that that review will take some time. Whatever you can do now is very greatly appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Do you want help? I'm creating a new main page now in case you say "yes"...I'll push "save" if you say so. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother. I'm halfway down the list already. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30 main page if you want it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That saved me a fair bit of effort. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&oldid=904194834

Leave a Reply