Checklist

Checklist

@Smallbones: Thanks for posting this! I will note that quite a few things have changed since I originally posted this, so I may need to provide an update before publication. Will see about writing a wee update tomorrow. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Smallbones: What would the deadline for this be? There's quite a few things I wrote in the report that no longer make sense (i.e. the recommendations for banning and reaching out to other wikis), so I'd want to give this a proper go over to ensure readers aren't reading old out-dated information. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be awakening in the morning and going through to copyedit and do final checks (much of today I worked out (hopefully) the last of the kinks of the noticeboard monitor script). @Grnrchst: If there's anything special you want to do with the disinformatsiya report, I can save that for last -- for the most part it looks great to me. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I'm working on updating it now, thanks for giving the time. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: One question: the report links to a bunch of diffs that no longer exist due to article and file deletions; should I leave the links in or remove them? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the file deletions (on Commons) I can do nothing, and would recommend trying to find an archive.org snapshot to link to. For everything else, we can either do the same (unlikely to be indexed if they're as deep a link as a diff), or I can view the deleted diffs and quotate from them. Lmk if you want me to email you diffs/etc or which ones you want to get at. jp×g🗯️ 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The links to the diffs were more a way to provide evidence for the initial investigation. I'm happy to look for archived versions, but I don't think it's necessary to quote them. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted diffs are the following: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] None of them appear to be archived on the wayback machine. As far as I'm aware, all of them are included in the linked spreadsheet. I'm just not sure whether to leave these in for posterity or remove them to save readers the hassle of clicking through to a dead diff. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: oldID showing Woodard on top should be linked; use of present tense needs to be changed to past tense; clarify that some of the referenced pictures have been deleted; updates on process of article deletion should be added, mentioning some projects decided to delete and keep, and their reasoning; clarify that some of the named users have been confirmed as sockpuppets by an investigation; thoughts from editors of other Wikipedias on this should be added (e.g. the comment from a Tumbuka Wikipedia editor); the response from the Swmmng music company should be mentioned. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Smallbones: I have updated the article. It should be ready for copyediting now. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit done. I suggest the editorial team write an intro that explains why some of the diff links are dead. Perhaps –

Note to readers: Some of the diffs in this article are dead links because of deletions made subsequent to writing. They have been retained to show diligence in the findings presented here. – Signpost editors

I can go back and insert this at the top if there aren't any other suggestions. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. Thanks for the copyedits! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The note to readers is in the copy now. Anyone else is welcome to copyedit the text. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should probably ask what happens to the old talk page discussion? Will that get moved to the new page or will we start over with a fresh one? --Grnrchst (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling about the talkpage is that we shouldn't surprise anybody with publication of their material. The talk page acts like part of The Signpost in terms of its visibility after the publication scripts are run. (Unless you are reading the single-page edition which suppresses talk pages.) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Discussion_report: I think I have come up with a way to make this not look like trash: the formatting is a little weird, but I can reprogram the script to just output that by default. Basically, I have it broken out by board, then the top discussions for the period on each board sorted by signature count -- then each list entry has a place to give a summary, that doesn't just trap everything inside a big table.

There are fifty so my plan is to basically just give a couple sentences for each. jp×g🗯️ 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I actually planned to make this discussion report a "CENT archives report". Basically a summary of the last N months of centralised large scale discussion, manually condensed into 2-3 paragraphs. As opposed to your table of "Long discussions" that you flesh out with more details.

I think the former needs to happen every few months, so was already planning to use this issue for it. Soni (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that can get done in the next couple hours they will pair like Riesling and Gouda, but the tables are waiting for their food so if the wine or the cheese is not ready one may have to go out alone. jp×g🗯️ 20:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hold my dish, I have a very strong preference for not having my planned section be at the same time as your ones, else I believe the utility is strongly diminished.

That and I'll need nearly 12-24h to wrap up my N&N sections and this one, between my breaks between Wikimania sessions

I will request you hold the next table based discussion report not in the next issue itself. Or in another section name Soni (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Are we planning to hold publication for more writing now? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

I may have to leave before finishing at ITM. I definitely want to do the Chronicle of Higher Education article write up, I might be able to do it tonight, but maybe not. I don't think I'll be able to get to the WMF v. UK lawsuit (which is not started, but very important.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Nothing is currently selected for a lead story; everything is in the brief notes. Do you have a suggestion for one that ought to be elevated? Maybe the dive bar bit? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Smallbones is AFK, I promoted a couple of things to lead items, including the dive bar. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Something about jumbotrons and fame" was supposed to be a placeholder caption. If someone can think of a good one, go for it. All that comes to mind for me is probably too risky to say out loud. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I got back from the beach and wrote Don't fiddle about the Chronicle of Higher Education article, putting it in slot number 3. That's all for me this issue! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this new? Popped up in my Google News search results today for the vanilla term Wikipedia. The headline "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here's why it matters" feels familiar, but we've had a lot of coverage like this lately. Author is Eden Cohen, outlet is OpenDor Media#Unpacked. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be a brief, at least (same as the tracegrains one from the sugg page... jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[placeholder] jp×g🗯️ 03:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider splitting off some news segments in another section completely. Currently I am considering some of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Office_action:_Removals_on_the_article_Caesar_DePaço, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_223#alleged_"massive_leak_on_Wikimedia_sites" and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Announcement_regarding_use_of_checkuser_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. I think they are the news segments that are least like the other "Regular news across the movement" and more like "Security concerns and important updates". They could all use more in depth coverage or better scrutiny than the current N&N "cover multiple topics" Soni (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist