deadline is 2026-09-13 19:00 UTC (currently 2026-09-20 21:09:54)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-09-20 21:09:54.
August 2026
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
27 28 29 30 31 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 01 02 03 04 05 06
September 2026
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
31 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 01 02 03 04
October 2026
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
28 29 30 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 01
The Signpost currently has 5913 articles, 733 issues, and 14555 pages (4800 talk and 9755 non-talk).
Current issue: Volume 22, Issue 12 (2026-09-16) · Purge
issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)
Previous issue: 2026-08-24 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk


22:11 Publication

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 days ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I boldly set the next publication deadline to 22 August 01:00. @JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, and HaeB: Would one of you like to volunteer to be acting EIC for this issue? Aligned with the discussion above, perhaps JPxG and Bri can take a nice wiki-holiday and not need to think about The Signpost for at least this round. ↠Pine (✉) 19:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pine, I support your efforts to keep the gears moving on this conversation. As a newcomer, I support whatever you all decided. One note on the publication date, per the Wikimedia discord: NLRB ballots will be mailed August 11 and will be counted September 3. Perhaps September 4th, 5th, or 6th would be a better publishing date to freshly cover the results? This connects back to the ideas and issues @Mitchsavl brought up in his The Signpost Gap proposal in terms of the issues around the timely covering of important topics. - Wil540 art (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wil540 art: thanks for the comment. If the upcoming issue publishes on approximately 22 Aug and the Signpost sticks with a cadence of publishing every 3 weeks then the next issue would be scheduled for 12 Sept, conveniently approximately a week after the vote count, which hopefully will allow the Signpost News and Notes regular contributors to do what they need to do between the vote count and the 12 Sept. Also, there may be people who want to submit or modify planned opinion pieces based on the results of the count, and having one week would also be convenient for that. So I suggest sticking with 12 Sept for the next publication date. ↠Pine (✉) 19:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@JPxG, Smallbones, Bri, and HaeB: Would one of you please volunteer to act as EIC for the 22 August issue? Please note the comments below asking for opinions about possible pieces to include in that issue. ↠Pine (✉) 19:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the ping, but (like Smallbones it seems, see below) I'm not available to act as EiC for this issue, and while I appreciate you nudging the process forward in general, I also don't think such ad-hoc appointments are a great idea, for various reasons.
Instead, considering that JPxG's last on-wiki activity was over two weeks ago and that the EiC role also includes important pre-publication activities (such as, as you indicated, providing guidance on submissions before the final thumbs-up/thumbs-down at publication time), it looks like we may want to resort to the tried-and-tested WP:EICAWOL procedure for this issue, assuming that JPxG still doesn't weigh in later today and that Bri will again volunteer to carry out publication. (Of course I'd also support Bri taking up the formal Co-EiC role he's held before, but that's his decision.) In that case I should be able to help out as usual by reviewing and approving some sections as usual, after getting RR in a publishable form.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I boldly set the next publication deadline to 22 August 01:00 - given that most sections still need more work (e.g. copyeditors, your help is welcome!), neither Bri nor JPxG have confirmed yet that they will be available to carry out publication (see above), and some discussions seem unresolved, I have just timidly and tentatively moved it by a day to 23 August 01:00 UTC - also consistent with our general custom and preference to have it fall on a weekend (US time). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am back and can publish today (Sunday, Pacific time). Need to look around and see how the issue stands. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great, so WP:EICAWOL it is. I also just updated the deadline template again, given that my earlier adjustment turned out to be too optimistic still (not too much progress over the past one and a half days). Feel free to update further. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What's the rush? I think 1 or 2 September would be fine Czarking0 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We selected this date a while back, partly in light of U.S. national holidays coming up. Anyway I can go pretty much as soon as copyedit is done. We are currently looking at unchecked In the media and Opinion. And Recent research is not marked as ready for c/e so I'm assuming it's not going to be in this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Update. Now just In the media is pending copyedit. Publication doesn't have to wait till deadline, if cped is done. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned previously: Please update the deadline template if you plan to publish earlier, it helps coordination (publishing earlier has caused confusion just recently).
RR should be publishable too now except for the missing piccy.
Regarding Opinion, please be mindful of the discussion below. Several are opposed to publishing it, and since we unfortunately don't have the EiC around to make the final call for us, some consensus evaluation is in order.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Two responses to HaeB.
1. Opinion pieces should be as free of censure as possible. I think the controversy over the content of the FOIA request is basically "is this newsworthy"? I think it is, but it doesn't have to be as on opinion piece, according to our own content guideline: An idea or perception not necessarily based on fact, sources, or knowledge.. I don't see the harm of publishing it on that basis. The FOIA request might be merely performative to bring attention to the case (I'm not necessarily saying it is), but the request is in the context of statements and actions that many reasonable people can take as threats, and it's perfectly legit for us to give space to an opinion editor to be talking about that. The only substantive question is, are the first two sentences of the Background section at all justifiable?
The Signpost and others have previously reported on the Trump administration's attempts to hurt the Wikipedia project. In particular, Ed Martin, of the Department of Justice Weaponization Working Group, has vowed to shame Wikipedia or worse.
I'm comfortable publishing them and think there's plenty of backing especially with the addition I made around the word "hurt".
2. Re deadlines. My view is, the writing deadline should not be moved up by the publisher, but the publishing deadline may be. This seems fair – all the writing should be complete at the writing deadline. The publishing deadline is a soft deadline by comparison, more of a suggestion to the publisher/EiC to guide their final composition process and give a heads-up to copyeditors. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Appreciate your thoughtful replies, but re 1) and free of censure, I'm sensing a type of fallacy that sometimes accompanies invocations of WP:NOTCENSORED. I should have clarified that I actually agree with you (and the author) that some of the concerns that had been voiced about harms possibly caused by this piece (which even lead to invocations of the WMF Legal department above) seem very overblown. You are also correct that "newsworthiness" is not a required property of opinion articles, but that doesn't mean that there should be no criteria at all. A text that basically says "FYI, I'm planning to submit this FOIA request" just doesn't offer very much substance as a Signpost piece (whether in the Opinion slot or elsewhere). I'd encourage us to think about this kind of editorial decisions more from the perspective of what brings value to our readers, rather than based on an abstract desire of "giving space" to opinionators. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see two possibilities here. One, the FOIA request is of no interest to any reader – a "nothingburger" as we say where I'm from (ganz nichts?) – and readers turn the page. Two, the FOIA request either sparks some concern about the investigations, makes at least one person wonder what the DOJ is actually up to, makes them wonder whether outside actors are up to something nefarious on Wiki, or maybe less dramatically want to determine the course our internal workings take, or something else happens in their brain. The second possibility is definitely substantive and I opt to provide the space to bring those thoughts to life, and to spark further conversation about what to do about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Re the second possibility: All this would be better served by publishing a piece after the FOIA request has already been submitted and (ideally) processed. Why all this insisting on publishing something now when nothing of that has happened yet? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I guess my take is, getting the information in front of the community sooner is better than later. Even if the information is "I'm going to do a thing" not "I have done a thing". When the thing could have really meaningful consequences if DOJ responds with stuff we care about, such as, yes, there is an ongoing investigation. Which they are likely to say whether or not they actually answer the questions raised. Plus, someone in the community might share knowledge that the submitter can use to perfect their request and make it less likely it gets rejected for technical reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The argument that publishing this opinion piece is useful because it helps get more eyes on the draft request would be a bit more convincing if 1) it hadn't already received lots of attention and feedback on this page (including even a reaction from the WMF Legal team), and 2) if Czarking0 had actually addressed all the suggestion received so far - it seems that that is not the case.
Anyway, considering that you since went ahead and published this, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-08-24/Opinion is probably a better place to continue that discusssion.
Regads, HaeB (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What I meant, specifically, about the hypothetical DOJ response. We might get a claim of FOIA exemption under U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). That means that there is an investigation. I went down the list of FOIA exemptions and none really seem to apply (e.g. personal medical information, national secrets) except this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Likely be out for this issue - cracked screen

[edit]

Well I thought I had some function, at least for my email, but not sure now. It likely can be fixed somehow at someprice, but I have no idea how long it will take. So it's somewhere between "no promises" and "count me out" for this issue. Now I'll see if this works! It took me 20 minutes! Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Smallbones: sorry to hear about the cracked screen. if you have any hardware needs then you may want to look at meta:Hardware donation program. I'm guessing that you're referring to a tablet or phone screen given that desktop monitors don't normally crack. If you need mobile or desktop hardware that you can't afford for Signpost activities then I hope that the hardware donation program will provide anything you need. ↠Pine (✉) 19:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:11 Humour

[edit]
Latest comment: 26 days ago23 comments6 people in discussion

The RAW ran a great (fake) Wikipedia:Baby Globe interview that we could translate and republish: w:fr:Wikipédia:Regards_sur_l'actualité_de_la_Wikimedia#Ses_goûts,_sa_Wikimania,_sa_prochaine_tournée..._:_Baby_Globe_nous_dévoile_tout_! - Wil540 art (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a rough translation here. Warning: I am not a Francophone, rely on the translation at your own risk. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We've dealt with a similar situation before at Cherchez une femme. I'd asked a couple of reasonable translators to check or redo the machine translation after they had already made a couple suggestions. They did very well with just a few more changes. Notice that no translation is perfect. For one thing a perfect translator would need to be perfectly fluent in both languages. (I'm not perfectly fluent in even one!) But I'd prefer that if there are "mistakes" translating into English that it reflects the French understanding, rather than the English - leave it closer to the author's intention. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm natively francophone (Canadian version), I could look into this and other translations (below). In my experience, machine translation between French and English is pretty accurate, so there likely wouldn't much to do save read and adjust tone/nuances. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bri, @Headbomb, @Smallbones - I did some formatting here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour
This is a message from Noe via the French Wiki discord:
"Hey! Thank you for this article, it is a great idea! I think some cultural adaptation could help humour to be more adapted to this audience. For example, "Endive or Chicon" is a large debate that occured in the old days for the title of a page about a vegetable with regional names. I think it could be better to change for a similar debate on English Wikipedia, if you can suggest one."
Any suggestions?? Perhaps a famously extended renaming debate? - Wil540 art (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Gave it a spitshine and checked the translation, which was as expected, fairly accurate and not in need of much love. I credited Bri for the machine translation and Wil540 art and myself for the review. Feel free to tweak your roles if you feel that doesn't reflect what you did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks good @Headbomb. I found this phrasing awkward in American English: "But if I had to sum up my Wikimania experience, I’d say it’s primarily about meeting Wikimedians—people who reached out to me and hugged me when I least expected it... " in the response to the Question: "Is it a good position to be in—Baby Globe at Wikimania?" I don't want to be overly sensitive but this phrasing sounds like Baby Globe is describing nonconsensual touching? Is that how the French version reads as well? Am I misreading it? - Wil540 art (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't describe non-consensual anything, just surprise at being unexpectedly embraced (literally) by the community.
... des gens qui m'ont tendu la main = literally "people that put their hands out" meaning handshake/offer help/reaching out in general
... qui m'ont pris dans leurs bras = literally "who took me in their arms" i.e. hugged.
... à des moments où je ne m'y attendais pas = literally "at moments I did not expect"
It's a very wholesome description of an interaction. Their might be a cultural divide here for Americans, but to a French person (including I suppose a French-Canadian person), there's nothing to raise an eyebrow at.
I'm certainly open to better wordings if you have them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think perhaps it's the least expect it. That might be too strong/the wrong word. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe the English idiom "met me with open arms" is apt here? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Headbomb thanks for the breakdown, I concur that least expect it is the issue here. @Bri I like the suggestion of using the "met me with open arms" idiom. I've tried to simply incorporate it in the place of "least expect it". The only part that is missing is the element of surprise that I think the original wording was attempting to express? - Wil540 art (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I restored the unexpected moments sentiment, and removed the extra clause regarding being embraced (the original only has it once). The original has a comma; it's not the hugs that were unexpected, but the moments where the sensation of being welcomed occurred. Reaching out (with a hand or hug) are metaphors for being welcomed (though, of course, they could have also been literal; you'd have to follow up with Baby Globe :)). isaacl (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suspect they were literal here. It's how they read in the original anyway. Any, no objection to the current version. It might not be the most accurate of translation with respect to literal events, but the sentiment is better translated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I actually don't doubt the literalness, was just going for the joke. Nonetheless, my interpretation of the original is that the ending clause applies to both of the preceding clauses, and so applies overall to the welcoming sentiment as represented by the actions and the parallel metaphor. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
About "Is it a good position...", I think translation in good now. It is a reference to a long monologue in a famous French movie, Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, with some odd wordings that were reshaped to talk about Wikimania instead of being a scribe. Noé (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Correction requested

[edit]

@Headbomb, @Bri, @Isaacl - I received a complaint via the Fr.Wikimedia discord: "Le Signpost indique que le RAW est une « newsletter », là où ils s'appellent eux-même « a community-written and -edited online newspaper ». Ne devrait-on pas nous-même se revendiquer d'un autre terme que « neweletter » ? Ça fait gagne-petit, je trouve." They feel that calling the RAW a newsletter instead of a newspaper, "lowers the consideration towards the RAW. 🙁". What's the policy on a post-publication edit? - Wil540 art (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

We have made corrections after publication in the past. For consideration of the others pinged here, the text originally said "wikipress publication" before this edit changed it to "newsletter". The blurb appearing on the issue's contents page still says "wikipress outlet" referencing RAW. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
fr:Wikipédia:RAW/Présentation says "Regards sur l'actualité du mouvement Wikimédia (ou RAW) est une infolettre communautaire mensuelle sur l'actualité du mouvement Wikimédia destinée à la communauté francophone.", and the definition at the link for "infolettre" says "...un document d'information envoyé de manière périodique par courrier électronique à une liste de diffusion...". But I'd say just use whatever translation that the writers at RAW prefer. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Newsletter (French: Infolettre) is a format: a small (in circulation) publication, by modern standards electronic, concerning the interest of an organization sent to the members of a organisation. The Signpost is a newsletter. The Kurier is a newsletter. RAW is a newsletter. See Template:Newsletters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wil540 art: I searched fr.wiki and can't find that complaint. In any case, there's no slight against RAW, which BTW describes itself (IMO correctly) as a newsletter. To what extent RAW is the equivalent of a frwiki newspaper, I have no idea. But one doesn't preclude the other. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure. If it can be described as multiple things, I think it's reasonable to use the descriptor preferred by the publication's contributors. isaacl (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Sorry, I edited the article before to read and react here. This debate started on Discord, not on-wiki, and perhaps it should continue in French Wikipedia before to be a change in this article or in the template. In my opinion, RAW, like Signpost, is not only for the members, it is public so it is a journal. It is defined as a newspaper in Wikidata in English, not in French. I wondering if it may be because of cultural differences between Europe and North America. Anyway, French community will discuss about this topic and you can keep the presentation of RAW as you prefer, and just elect the one you think more accurate for Signpost 🙂 Noé (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can live with "community journal" but it, like the Signpost, Kurier, This Month in GLAM, remains a newsletter. Readership doesn't need to be exclusively members. See also pile vs heap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:11 Opinion

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 days ago18 comments5 people in discussion

The rest of your edits I think are fine. I would be happy to collaborate, but I suspect our opinions of the matter are too far apart to make an opinion piece that we would mutually support.Czarking0 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not the EiC, but if I were, I wouldn't run this piece. It puts the cart before the horse. It also comes across a bit as grandstanding. IMO the correct way to proceed is to

  1. either submit the FOIA request, replacing any and all references to the "Signpost" in the FOIA request with references to "community journalism" (or deleting them), and then reporting on the results received here or elsewhere,
  2. or not submit the FOIA request.

If there is anything interesting in the response you get, Czarking0, I actually think and hope that you might get weightier publications than the humble Signpost interested in your story. But until the FOIA request has been submitted and responded to there isn't really a story. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I somewhat agree but @Bluerasberry: asked me to submit is here first and I trust his judgement. Czarking0 (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, I do not (see also); there have been several cases now where a submission that had been championed by Bluerasberry turned out to be problematic and was eventually rejected by the rest of the Signpost team. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Andreas that this shouldn't be published. Regardless of the value and appropriateness of the planned FOIA request (I'm probably a bit more relaxed than Andreas about the Signpost being mentioned in such a request, as long as the sender is not claiming to be an official representative), the mere information that someone intends to submit it just isn't of great value to our readers.
I'm also a bit taken aback to see the author simply resubmitting this piece largely unchanged and opening this thread here without any reference to or acknowledgment of the extensive previous discussions about it just a few weeks ago, and by his entirely unreasonable demand that other Signpost team members not comment on any draft pieces or edit any articles I have contributed to unless you have read the sources linked in the pieces (not even fixing typos, really?).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I 100% stand by my decision. The expectation that you read sources before commenting on a piece is reasonable. I have stated my openness to others suggesting changes to the request. As an opinion piece, I do not wish to take the backbone out of it. If the The Signpost preferred to publish a similar piece as a statement from the editors collectively rather than an opinion piece I would be more open to crafting the language towards something we all agree on. However, I am also in support of publishing in its current form. Czarking0 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: I think we have plenty of coverage here doing journalism, but out of an abundance of caution I added text in a footnote via this edit to justify the use of the word "harm". I think reasonable people will receive news from a government official that he wants to discredit an institution that it implies harm towards that institution. But spelled out the rationale. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like the note. I also would have no issue with using a different word if there is a good suggestion. Czarking0 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I 100% stand by my decision. - Czarking0, it's not your decision who gets to comment on your Signpost submissions under which conditions, or to edit them.

The expectation that you read sources before commenting on a piece is reasonable - no, it is only reasonable if someone makes claims that specifically depend on these sources. Many comments or edits will not. (I haven't reviewed the exchange between you and Pine, and am not taking sides - maybe Pine said something in the former category.) I can't believe I have to explain such basic things here. As an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should be aware that this is also very far from how we handle WP:V in the mainspace ("you must not edit my article unless you have read every source cited in it"). What is different in bylined Signpost pieces is that the bylined author should be able to stand behind the statements/claims/opinions - but that's not the same as granting him the right to set the conditions under which other team members are allowed to comment or edit.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:11 WikiProject report

[edit]
Latest comment: 29 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Chorchapu: This draft looked interesting but I guess is now abandoned? Andreas JN466 06:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

For now, it is. I started writing it about a month ago but decided that it would be better to wait until the WikiProject's 20th anniversary and publish it then. There is more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_articles#Promoting_WP:AUG26. I've never written a Signpost article before - @Jayen466: should I keep in in the Signpost draft space or move it to my userspace for now? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think it would be best to move it to your user space, just in case anyone else wants to write a WikiProject report for one of the upcoming issues and needs that draft space.
I look forward to seeing the finished version of your piece next year then! Best, Andreas JN466 18:35, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much! I'll do so now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:11 publication II

[edit]
Latest comment: 26 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Starting new section to keep things in chronological order.

Looks like the issue is in shape to publish Real Soon Now. I'll stick to the latest publication deadline which is in a little under three hours, but in the future if we get to this point, I'd feel OK just going ahead with publication in this state.

Here's what's planned for inclusion, approximately in this order: See you in a bit ... taking a break for at least an hour. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

One hour to go, still planning to go with the list of items above for issue 11. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Slight reordering to comport with WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance:
  1. News and notes
  2. In the media
  3. Recent research (up)
  4. Discussion report (up)
  5. Traffic report
  6. Humour (up)
  7. On the bright side (up)
  8. Opinion
  9. Special report
  10. Comix
Cheers. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Starting the process! Please, no editing till I post it's complete, or the script may become angry. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Table of contents looks normal. Spot check of a few subscribers looks good. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bri, thanks for publishing this issue. The baby globe interview is still marked as a draft. I’d fix it if i knew how. Wil540 art (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wil540 art: Thanks for the heads up! It appears to be a glitch in the publishing script, easily fixed. Hope that's the only one. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
p.s. I noticed shortly before publication the draft was missing some of the usual header info. Probably got accidentally cut somewhere during preparation. A manual patch of the header templates was attempted, which looked OK to my eye but may have been out of order, or had some other defect that sent the script off the rails. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe it was a copying misstep I made on the first draft. Thanks for fixing it and sorry about that. Wil540 art (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:11 Traffic report

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I was just about to approve this for publication, but (as done before) decided to run it by Sol 5.6 for copyediting and factchecking suggestions.

And it indeed flagged various factual issues. Some (e.g. on outdated box office figures) seem a bit nitpicky, but others deserve some attention (e.g. I think it is indeed incorrect to say that Jason Arday filed lawsuits, as opposed to sending legal threats and getting the police involved against a reporter). Per Bri above, we are nearing publication, so we shouldn't spend too much time on this, but if anyone has a moment to look into it, that would be great (I'll try to do so myself, but likely won't get to it until in about an hour from now). Obviously all corrections should be human-authored. CC @Igordebraga, CAWylie, YttriumShrew, and Bkissin:

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good job fact checking. I found potentially a source of bad info here, which mentions someone bringing a lawsuit against Cambridge with a reference to an article in Varsity (Cambridge), but the other article is from 2024 and is about another person. Without further clarification where the claim is from, this should be removed. BTW this is found in the "Most edited articles" section. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Changed this part. The others, even if copy-pasting from the Top 25 Report or the articles themselves might've led to inaccuracies (one fact I took from the tropical storm page isn't there anymore, so I rewrote), only changed a few bits because I'm not taking advice from a bot (nitpicking on things like the Commonwealth events - even if the 6 events for parathletes are subsets of the 10 for regular ones, adding both for 16 is not exactly wrong - and making grammar and tone suggestions that Bri and anyone else who looked over could've changed already), can you please the next time around just list what bothers you like other Signpost editors have done before? igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for fixing these factual issues (I also just fixed some additional typos flagged by Sol). Not sure what you mean by can you please the next time around just list what bothers you like other Signpost editors have done before? As for the usage of "events" vs. "sports", Sol's seems to agree with the infobox in 2026 Commonwealth Games ("Events: 215 in 10 sports", a big difference to "16 events"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not the first time other Signpost editors call me in the Newsroom regarding something they think needs a fix, doesn't bother me, it happens. Only didn't like putting the whole page through a bot rather than give your highlights, gives the same feel of people saying "I researched through AI". The only one of those in my life is Gemini because it comes on searches without being asked, and doesn't always help me. (yes, I conflated sports and events, just a poor choice of words, put competitions) igordebraga ≠ 01:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As the person who added Arday's initial entry into that particular report, I gleaned most of the information from this version of his article. His litigation against Cambridge, I think, did actually come from the Plagiarism Today website after a Google search. Most every entry I add into the weekly report comes straight from the respective enwikis, with some online searching for some updates for report purposes, without regards to authenticity. (In the Arday instance, a case of simply "read it on the internet, so it must be true"). I will be more thorough with BLP entries. Wyliepedia @ 04:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
But the Plagiarism Today article linked by Bri above doesn't support the claim that Arday [...] filed lawsuits (it only mentions a lawsuit filed by Arday's critic Nathan Cofnas on a different matter).
I appreciate that you folks mostly base these writeups on what the articles themselves say (I guess I would do the same), but given that including them in the Signpost kind of records them in a permanent version (since factual changes to Signpost articles after publication are generally avoided), there's an extra motivation to avoid mistakes here.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Obituary for Gobonobo

[edit]
Latest comment: 26 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings. We submitted an obituary about ten days ago and haven't heard back. Because you have a posted deadline for the next issue of a couple days from now, I hope a nudge here is in order. Bluerasberry, pinging you because you're the only person on the masthead whose name I recognize, sorry. Is there anything more we should do to have this published in the Signpost? Thank you kindly. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SusanLesch: Again, I feel deeply sorry for the loss of life and his cooperation. I staged the obituary at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary. An issue just went out in the last day, so this will go out in the next issue. Thank you for submitting and excuse my lateness in processing this. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks nice, thank you, Bluerasberry. Incidentally, I remember Jason spoke highly of your work. Can we please correct the authorship to say "Myotus, Pingnova, and SusanLesch"? Myotus started this and thus is lead author. Many thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@SusanLesch: Thank you. I changed the authorship. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Community view

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Wikipedia and fandoms

We have a new contributor, CatPencil, who has gone through some rounds of editorial development of this submission with me at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Fandoms_and_the_Wikipedia. I think the submission is in good shape for consideration from others here, and I recommend it for publishing.

I would like to request further review. Please ping the author with comments and suggestions, as they are responsive and able to react. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you're from China, have you hit up 银河科幻大会? Why this? @CatPencil: are you Chinese? Very few of our readers can read chinese characters so this seems like a really random and poorly presented thing to bring up.Czarking0 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Heyo, @Czarking0: actually hm, I suppose should've seen this coming. When I was adding that, it was my third round of editorial editing the article and I was supposed to globalize the outlook, I put it to the intro, but then I moved most to the other parts of the article instead, seems like I missed that, as to where I should place it; as per this request I changed the place, and change it to the native chinese version. However, I did not change the name. I put similar spanish and french articles with their native names, so I feel like it would be unfair to treat the chinese one diffrently, instead I rather describe the article shortly so anyone would have an idea what it is. Thank you again. :) let me know how it looks! 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am in favor of using some foreign words and text in our articles. I know these characters are inaccessible to many, but English Wikipedia also supports many other languages. There is a lot of anti-Chinese propaganda in the world, and to show that China has fandoms would be surprising to some and humanizing otherwise. We are in an age when mainstream United States media uses non-English language casually without subtitles or captions, such as the heavy Korean language use in the Netflix's most popular movie, the English language film KPop Demon Hunters, or the unapologetic dropping of Chinese cultural concepts in the very popular The Three-Body Problem media franchise which that Chinese con has promoted. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean culture are the basis for perhaps half of the fandom cultures, and a wikilink in context leading to more information is not so confusing or surprising.
I recognize that non-English characters do not appear in, for example, The New York Times. With English Wikipedia's global scope, and for a global article like this one, I think it is an experimental but not a poor choice. Good call Czarking for raising the issue, and also, good call CatPencil for doing editorial experimentation. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I saw some changes and the edits about changing the chinese articles to the english wikipedia ones(and not other ones), and thanks a lot. They're awesome, but like said here, I'm aware that there's english versions for the other language articles, but I feel like I'd rather use the chinese text and version, as per the projects listed in the piece are directly connected to those articles as well. Another reason is, I feel like it's a much more genuine way of telling the reader that 'hey, look at these awesome conventions in their native language', as thus I did the same with french and spanish as well. Plus, I don't really see them effecting the overall understanding of the piece, nor how it comes off to the reader. If anyone would like to change them, discussing here would be definetly nicer :D 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm all in favor of wide latitude for Signpost contributors. This discussion helped me understand the motivation for showing the Chinese Wikipedia article. I'll go back and reformat my changes later today. My main preference here is that we use wikilinks not external links (e.g. not https://zh.wikipedia.org...) , but wikilinks to Chinese Wikipedia are just fine.
tl;dr I'll return to copyediting hopefully consistent with contributor's preference. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to highlight that some of the ideas here are very vague. I don't feel like I can copy edit to fix this. Phrases like not so full-fledged and go a long way could be clarified.Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Unless you're interested in the Meta parts, cause man, that's beyond me.) I recomend cutting this. I don't know if I have support for saying this but I think that The Signpost needs to have a tone that is significantly more refined than a twitter post and I think this phrasing does not support a refined tone.Czarking0 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

infest @CatPencil:Is this really what you mean?Czarking0 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:WikiProject Video games has made efforts to bring a larger cooperation of editors to Wikipedia I do not think this is true. Is there a source forthis?Czarking0 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now, we have concluded the main reason is flexibility of Who is we? I do not agree or believe this without evidenceCzarking0 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

which isn't really much when its wikis, because there are so many non-niche, and very mainstream fandoms that yet to primarily use Wikipedia as form of information gathering. This just does not make sense. I recomment cutting the end of this paragraph starting with the prior sentence.Czarking0 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fandom-based wikis such that is were called out for being AI-slop and advertisement filled, yet they have not seen any competition and still attract many people across the Internet without one drive-through our Wikipedia I have no idea what you are talking about. You are writing for global audience of all ages.Czarking0 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I could keep going with this, but I think as the piece currently stands the CatPencil needs to do more work for copy-editing to be a fair use of other Signpost editors' time. Also CatPencil do you know Fandom the website and Wikipedia are both started by Jimmy Whales?Czarking0 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0 heyo, ooh ping shower, hmmmm lets see. So the first meta part I see, yeah thats fair, deleted, nice reflection on your part, though I feel like its nicely playful.
Okay on the second thing is, thats not a claim, or wasn't supposed to sound like one, it is meant to support the later part that is WikiProject Video games who have raised an mind-blowing 2,600 GA-Class articles, however reading this, it seems like mid way I forgot the first part. So changed that, and softened it.
I have overhauled other parts, thanks for big feedback, I've added some sources for traffic claims and the rest are basically hey check out these cool projects on wikipedia anyway.
one request, could you please write all of this in a single message next time, I get autopinged and when I saw the 8-9 pings I was very scared to say the least, haha. I'll revise most of it tonight though. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

such that is were I don't think this is ever a grammatically correct expression. Can you please spend more time ensuring your writing uses good grammar?Czarking0 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0 ah, yes, though I think this piece will not make it to publishing in the given time, so shall we postpone it? It'll give me enough time to revise the whole article too. In the meantime, the CNN CBS opinion piece can get published.
Thanks again, and my deepest apology since you spent a good time copyediting this. I'll be better next time, and improve myself more for this. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Eh, don't worry about it you are learning. I think either piece can be ready for publication but I recommend choosing one of the two. Czarking0 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let's go with the second one for now, I can publish this next time with a lot more revision. :) 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@CatPencil I put a POSTPONED - notice in the title of the fandom article. I hope to see it next issue! Don't be too hard on yourself, you are doing good, genuine reporting, and you are still evolving as a writer, as we all are. Additionally, the collaborative nature of writing for the Signpost takes some getting used to. Try not to take feedback personally. Don't give up and keep writing! You have a unique perspective and people will be interested to read it. - Wil540 art (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@CatPencil. I support the postponement and just want to be sure that there is no implicit promise that this, or the two other proposed articles, will be published without any or all of them standing on their own two feet. Postponements should not imply that any article will be published later - only approved articles for each issue should be published. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 In the media

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Graphical pageviews for the English Wikipedia article Human penis, between 2026-07-28 and 2026-08-26 from the pageviews tool

I was a guest presenter in a podcast. Here a proposal for covering it in the "in brief" section. I feel reliable in reporting the contents of the one-hour podcast to save the effort of editors here listening to it, but anyone else here can make a call on what to do with this.

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, wow, that caught me by surprise. What's this vandalism in our newsroom??? Oh, okay then... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Done ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you load up this article on mobile the Dolly Parton images make the next look terrible. I noticed this issue in an article from the last publication after release as well. I think the problem is the image template, but I am not sure what the right fix is. I think this is effecting all articles.Czarking0 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply


I just fleshed out the agents story a bit.

I confess to be very confused by the current title Five shocking photos may be changed on Wikipedia, even after reading through the entire draft. Which five photos? May be changed to what?

Generally, while I'm not opposed to good jokes and witticisms, attempts at such feats risk falling flat or becoming obtuse. (To take the subheadings in the current draft as an example: "AI overruns German wiki site" is more helpful in orienting our readers than "We all wear a mask".)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am 100% just spoofing on Buzzfeed style headlines. I would like the signpost to grow its readership. The photo changing was Dollyx3, Delveyx2 but the count is not that important. I think We all wear a mask is good. Delvey is complaining about the anonymity of wikipedia editors.
I'd be much more receptive to your feedback if you proposed what you think things should be changed to rather than saying that my work is bad. Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 publication date

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have not even a placeholder date on the countdown box right now. How's the Sunday after U.S. Labor Day weekend sound to everybody? I.e. publishing deadline 2026-09-13 1900 UTC (timestamp converter; noon Pacific time, Sunday), writing deadline 24 hours before. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Special report

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia at 25: A Wake-Up Call II By Christophe Henner (schiste)

In January 2026 we ran Christophe's first piece about declining Wikipedia readership.

That piece got lots of engagement here.

Could I get comments from others on these points?

If this piece were to be published in Signpost, then it needs to be adapted in certain ways. Before I rally to organize that, would anyone like to speak up in support or opposition to opposing this, for any reason? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, disclosure should be upfront, at the very top: most readers won't scroll all the way to the bottom if the disclosure is hidden there, and a disclosure visible to all readers is essential for intellectual honesty. Clarifying in which ways AI assistance took place (e.g. whether it was writing whole paragraphs, copyediting, compiling data, bringing the structure, etc.) would also be needed, as "supported by AI" will not tell the reader much. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Chaotic Enby: The author put a notice at top. Could you please check what they did and comment on the sufficiency of this disclosure?
I really appreciate the feedback, as Signpost increasingly gets submissions including AI. Any comments about balancing contributors' desire to use AI to express points versus readers' desire to connect human to human is helpful. I am sympathetic to all sides and not sure what to do. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The notice is helpful. As AI use becomes more widespread, this is indeed a question that deserves to be raised. Wikipedia is relatively cautious regarding the use of AI in reader-facing content, and I would expect readers of the Signpost to have similar expectations here. In the same way as our article guidelines will tend to prioritize the benefit of readers rather than the convenience of editors, it makes sense to have similar guiding principles here.
An issue we've had when writing guidelines for LLM use is the inherent broadness in meaning of "copyediting", which notably differs across varieties of English. Even despite the explicit link to basic copyediting, our WP:NOLLM policy had to be amended to clarify its intended meaning. The Signpost, as far as I know, doesn't have an equivalent guideline, but I expect its readers to be left wondering if this term is being used in the same way here, namely spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Chaotic Enby: I do not have an opinion on what Signpost policy should be, but we have had multiple disruptions here which I feel could have been prevented by having a Signpost AI policy. These disputes are in the archives and I may not remember them all. I think there were 3-5. Here are some posts with Open Knowledge Association's submission. The part that I do not like about this outcome is that I feel like Signpost is in an ambiguous state of both accepting but really not wanting AI submissions, and also that Signpost sort of looks to the existing English Wikipedia policy but also does not accept that because of specific needs.
Enby - if you have interest and availability and attention, and because I know you developed English Wikipedia AI guidelines which the project adopted, I would appreciate any advice or recommendations you have on how Signpost can routinely regulate AI submissions. They keep coming in. I am uncomfortable because I am in a position of recognizing AI submissions but not having clear advice on what to tell submitters, and my fellow editors are in a likewise difficult place of facing these AI submissions that I bring forth and neither being enthusiastic about running them nor quick to reject them. What do you think The Signpost should do? I do not know how to set the dial and disclosures between rejection and acceptance.
Bluerasberry (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! I will admit that I am less familiar with how the Signpost establishes its internal policies (i.e. whether they are decided on by Signpost volunteers alone or by a broader community consensus). Having a clear line in the sand prevents wasted effort, even if it is just along the lines of:

Although AI tools are not fully prohibited, be aware that many readers see in the Signpost an opportunity to connect human-to-human with other contributors, and learn about their perspectives. AI assistance is tolerated for basic copyediting, but the extent of its use should be disclosed upfront. We expect the prose itself to be human-written and the points expressed to be yours.

While I don't think cosmetic edits really require an AI disclosure, I know that people will interpret this in a more permissible manner, which is why being upfront about the extent seems like a necessary measure here. The other option would be to allow assistance to a broader degree but mark the AI-assisted publications on the main Signpost page itself and place them in a separate category, where they wouldn't compete with purely human-written ones, but I don't want to add disproportionately more work for Signpost volunteers while unwillingly encouraging a schism in readership. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We should publish this after submitting it through the normal review process. Czarking0 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I certainly do not support a disclosure like this "those who find this offensive, disturbing or unpleasant may wish to avoid reading it." Is is especially ridiculous to have this in an issue where we are linking this image with no disclosure
you know what it is
those who find this offensive, disturbing or unpleasant may wish to avoid reading it

Czarking0 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Foundation employees in the United States are unionized

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Election results are at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-RC-391740

Statement from the WMF CEO and board are at

The first comment I see from a wiki community member is at

Bluerasberry (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is, by all accounts, a historic day. I am incredibly proud of all US staff members for their accomplishment today, and hope this paves the way for similar successes in other countries. Of course, any victory here would have been a victory – whether 50%+1 or beyond 90%. But with such overwhelming numbers, it has been made clear that unionization is not a contentious matter, but the will of the Wikimedia Foundation's U.S. staff as a whole. I am hopeful that this mandate will provide staff the leverage they need – and deserve – when negotiating these next few days. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Honestly I'd prefer to keep our personal support or opposition to unions out of the newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/By the numbers

author requests this submission to be postponed with them revising it till end of September 2026, as stated at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Does_the_country_of_birth_affect_the_likelihood_of_having_a_Wikipedia_biography?

What is the procedure for moving postponed submissions? Can someone please move this one please? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe the move I just did will suffice Czarking0 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm out for issue 22:12

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I'm effectively out ... have to attend to some real world stuff over the weekend and early next week. Will stop by to do copyediting if time permits. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Smallbones and JPxG also have not been active. I would really prefer someone experienced to run WP:EICAWOLCzarking0 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 On the bright side

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started the draft to show that I have content in mind. I plan to complete this by the end of Saturday. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 05:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Obituary

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Are there any sources for this section? Czarking0 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: If you see fit then you can reference the notes for
An obituary is not the place to explain, but also, anyone interested in joining monthly video chats among Wikipedians in the United States who do in-person organizing is at meta:NARWHAL/Meetups. The news of his passing comes from people who have remained in touch with the group of others who talk in this way, and the authors are participants in meta:Wikimedians of Minnesota User Group.
The piece came from the submissions desk at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Obituary_for_Gobonobo.
Bluerasberry (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

He was a student of biology at the University of Minnesota. For two decades, his Wikimedia work addressed content gaps and systemic bias Sounds like he was currently a student when he died, but also had been editing Wikimedia for >20 years. Is that true?Rest of the article looks good. I wanted to ce and this is the only thing I'd flag before approving.Czarking0 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

A 48 year old student. Makes sense to me. It is backed up by his obituary in the Mpls newspaper of record. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Respond to new contributor

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We have a submission by CatPencil staged for publication in this issue.

This user made another proposal at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Can_CNN_and_CBS_stay_reliable. Can someone please respond to this? They have asked for some feedback on the article and a path to publication.

I appreciated their first contribution but I am out of attention to review this piece. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry I gave some feedback and moved the article to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion. - Wil540 art (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 WikiConference India 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion

traffic has hit an all time low I do not believe this is true. I do not think we should run this piece without a source backing up this claimCzarking0 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is in reference to Traffic line on Wikimedia projects reported at several documentation. But I agree tone can be changed. Thank You for doing that up.

read across the Kerala’s Backwater to Kashmiri Wikipedia read across Kashmir’s Dal Lake @Abhinav619: what does this mean?Czarking0 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two different communities in India and distance between them is almost the two water bodies is almost 1,650 miles (2,660 km) and they all unite. The reference is to India being so big with its diversity, yet they all connected during Wiki Conference India 2026. While Kerala has Backwaters, Kashmir has Dal Lake. But Culturally significant also, both places.

has an active Wiki Project Med on Kashmiri Wikipedia I'd prefer if this was a link to the project on that wikiCzarking0 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can we link this.

A language with limited readership, advocacy under open source could even become more challenging, those in publishing may find you as a challenger than collaborator. The point is not clear here Czarking0 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Society concentrated in the mountains with langauge having endangered kind of atmosphere.Kashmiri authors at times find listing their work under threat that big giant websites on Wikimedia project might just finish them up. It is just the reverse of what we do under Open License. So challenger than collaborator mentioned.
There's probably another article worth of context to add here. I'd be interested in you doing a piece on these conversations in the future.Czarking0 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Definitely, will do someday.Abhinav619 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

They aim to build a structured heritage collection for making knowledge reusable under free license to support asking not just "What was tradition?", but "How is the tradition practiced, understood and transmitted today?" Love this part, just wanted to give some positive feedback Czarking0 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank You.

travelled I think this is the correct spelling in the Indian English dialect but it is not in mine so I just wanted to double checkCzarking0 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Check Wikitionary here.

Thank You so much for reviewing.Abhinav619 (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Opinion

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago15 comments3 people in discussion

the CEO didn't even actually know about her in the first place The CEO being David? This doesn't make sense. Czarking0 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's easy to think about why this would be a problem if CBS was already ruled reliable, and that there's not much problem with a CNN takeover. @CatPencil: I think this is too poorly written to be copy-edited.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as this is explicitly an opinion and the piece for Community View is also an opinion, I think CatPencil should be limited to one opinion piece per publication. I think neither piece is good for publication in its current form, but this one is closer.Czarking0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

hey @Czarking0 got your feedback, and fixed per your comment. I'm sorry that neither piece lives up to the standard. If its better this piece can be published and other can be postponed. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Based on your interests and writing I assume you are are young American. I am also a young American. Phrases like that harmless are something I would say casually, but I do not think these colloquialisms make for good press.Czarking0 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Czarking0 Changes are made per request, thank you! let me know how it looks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Starting to look better / get close but this is a run on Now per WP:RS, reliability depends on the context and where, or how the topic is presented by the network; as in, if CBS were to cite somewhere like Reuters, in their coverage, you can pass that as reliable information, however, changes in outlets' management can affect their wording and toning of that specific news, in a somewhat negative coverage despite the source it comes from. Czarking0 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
That would definitely be a long-debated discussion, and don't worry; as usual, I'll cover it in here, at the Signpost. I recommend against this. Czarking0 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
changes done. @Czarking0 I was gonna change the first part to something better but I suppose how reliablity is established was explained in the third part already, so yep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To be blunt, while I appreciate CatPencil's efforts here and agree with a lot of the substance, I do not know why the Signpost would run this piece. It seems to be partly a recap of skepticism about CBS, which is something that seems outside the scope of the Signpost (and which has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere), and partly a belated/extended RfC !vote (or effort to offer an alternative closing statement to an RfC). Commentary about an RfC or type of RfC is in scope, but I don't see anything here that wasn't already articulated in that RfC? FWIW, sorry. (Also, I am a mere passerby and not a Signpost editor FYI.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
hey @Rhododendrites lets establish what is this and what is this not; this is an opinion piece on the events of CBS and CNN deal, why wikipedians arguing about it, the skeptism of the RfC despite it being ruled as reliable, and the possible effects of CNN deal. Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened, Signpost has both editor and non-editor readers who might be interested in this, and its pieces can get pushed to mainstream media. As for the coverage, Opinion pieces, are definetly more subjective, and full of opinions per the name, might not be an usual signpost article. This opinion specifically comes with a skeptisim vibes, that's beacuse I'm writing it, have enough sources to be skeptic, and the RfC was skeptic too. You can think like The New York Times publishing an opinion piece about therapy when obviously the times itself generally does not cover opinions about theraphy.
I really like your feedback though, so to see what may make one see that way, I will make some changes to the tone of the article. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rather than an full-on article expressing a press release, I think this should be thought as pushing the situation to press, and going above what happened I have no idea what you are saying Czarking0 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
has been done with more depth and nuance elsewhere I certainly agree with this. CatPencil seems to have no special insight about the topic which the average reader could not gather from reading Wikipedia pages about the situation. However, I am still inclined to publish if CatPencil so desires and we have no alternative opinion pieces. I do not think such a publication would actively harm The Signpost. Publishing it may develop CatPencil's authorship, and it may attract other readers or opinion authors. Czarking0 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I was not able to reply this for some reason. Oh well, I would be happy if this get published, if not, theres always fish in the sea, try till happens. For the first part, I was refering to fact that this is, in fact, not that objective nor important compared to other pieces. Thanks again. Now me going to sleep. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Czarking0 I have made some overhauls and made the article more "opinionized". Hopefully not too much, you can filter some, and I would like to hear how it looks now, more specifically, could you lead me into what you liked and didn't liked about this new direction? so I can improve things from that way, instead of making overhauls. Thanks. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Recent research

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its sixteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Disinformation report

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think a reference / link to the PassBlue report is neededCzarking0 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

"PassBlue was unable to establish the real identity of the pseudonymous accounts" - I just wanted to highlight that is appear that they did try and would have been willling to out wikipedia users.Czarking0 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Czarking0: I'm not sure of the relevance of the question of whether or not they tried to out anybody. The quote is that Banjo 'properly noted that "Wikipedia's public records do not identify the real-world identity of its volunteer editors."' Beyond that I'd have to be a mind-reader to know whether they tried to out anybody, but I've seen no indication that they did try. Even if they did try, that's not something Wikipedia editors can control - different publications have different goals. We can't control their editorial policies, only our own. The Wikipedia community can only control whether people (e.g. on the Signpost) e.g. link to another publication that outs another editor. As far as I know, PassBlue didn't make such a link, or even try to make such a link, and I didn't link to the PassBlue article to try to make such a link. It looks like somebody might conclude that there is such a link (at least if several other "links in the chain" were confirmed) but I wouldn't even try to make such links in the chain. And I wouldn't publish this if I had made such links. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I see your quote ("PassBlue was unable to establish the real identity of the pseudonymous accounts ") now in the PassBlue article (not in the Disinfo report). It just says to me that they did a basic check on their info, and want readers to understand that there was no strong connection from Candidate A to Wikipedia editor Z. I've seen a few outside publications who have claimed to make similar connections, e.g. through interviews. But there's no such claim in the PassBlue article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:12 Traffic report

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

gender war is there really a base for saying this? I am not sure we should make this remark without following othersCzarking0 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you're looking for. According to The New York Times, [S]ome admirers of the holdout juror [were] quick to presume that the 11 others were bleeding-heart liberals giving a pass to a killer they mistook for a victim. Gender, too, played a role: Some women who supported Ms. Clancy saw the holdout as yet another man unwilling to listen to, or believe, a woman in crisis, while one widely shared social media post said the nine women jurors had "traded justice for feelings," casting aside the evidence and letting their emotions guide them. Likewise BBC says The case became a flashpoint for gender discussion, too, with opinions often divided along gender lines. I've heard other similar viewpoints on US media. Is the TR content acceptable in that light? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think gender war is a much stronger statement then division along gender lines. People die in war. Czarking0 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Plenty of women are killed in femicides but I think gender war is more a play on “culture wars”, and isn’t very encyclopedic term to use. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
And I do not seethe connection to femicide and the subject at hand (Clancy trial). Czarking0 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:EICAWOL?

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago15 comments5 people in discussion

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: Is it time to invoke EICAWOL again. I don't see a need to update the deadline, but if JPxG wants to do that, it's time has come. I can contribute on a very limited basis, i.e. approving about 10 articles for publication, and some copy editing, but only up to midnight tonight (Monday). I will turn into a pumpkin all day Tuesday, and somebody else would need to do the actual publishing and anybody other than me should approve the Disinfo report. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right (and I apologize for my undue optimism earlier). Per step 2, Bri should let us know if he can take on publication once more, and I think you and other regulars should already feel free to start approving sections as per step 3. It looks like there are still some tricky cases to decide (I see significant concerns above about the suitability of the Opinion piece); weighing in on such discussions is another way to help clear the way for publication (also by facilitating JPxG's decision in case he still shows up for duty). Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@HaeB and Bri: I've approved the easiest 3 or 4 articles already. I ran into a problem with the Special report - the top matter is missing - so the piccy doesn't show up and the second title gets messed up. The Blurb should be "The data strike back!" in the plural. I tried 4 or 5 methods to put it all together (none worked) and then reverted to where I started. I did read it through the correlation is not part. I'd skimmed it before. Should be approved. Will look at Opinion now! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd reject the Opinion piece because it is really not about Wikipedia. Also the tone is quite breezy. I'm personally tempted in almost every issue to stretch the envelope on our "prohibition" on non-Wikipedia related articles. There should be some method of writing about Wikipedia and then relating it to real-world issues. But this article stretches that envelope too far! IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
7 approved, 2 previously postponed, Disinfo report, News and notes, In the media (all the hard ones) awaiting. My skin is already turning orange. I may be back in about 18 hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Smallbones thanks for approving and reviewing all those articles! Is there an on Wiki record of how many times EICAWOL has been enacted? Would raising money to fund the EIC position prevent EICAWOL from occurring? @JPxG ? I think The Signpost should be eligible for funds from the WMF and also could attract grants geared towards journalism. (CC grant whisperer @Bluerasberry.) Outside of the WMF, the Institute for Nonprofit News might be able to help find support, the Society of Professional Journalists Foundation has a grant cycle, there is a Pulitzer Data Journalism Grant, and also the Press Forward org. I'm sure this has been discussed at length in the past. - Wil540 art (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a bad idea for several reasons. We can have a fuller discussion about it if folks insist, but as a first step, I would like to invite being very clear about who will be endowed with the power to hire and fire this future paid editor-in-chief tasked with overseeing the work of Signpost's team of volunteer contributors. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A few people have mentioned something along these lines before. It sounds like a neat idea, but essentially all editorial decisions would come with an additional (and much more consequential) financial decision about how to split up the dosh. To come up with a crazy made-up example, if we had an editor-in-chief who was at one point quite ardently devoted, and later became quite busy and basically only logged in to Wikipedia to run the publication process, does his pay get docked? Do we only pay editorial staff or do we also pay writers? Does this mean we pay everyone who writes articles? What if someone writes a really long piece and it gets spiked, do we just stiff them? Or do we pay people to write stuff we don't publish, thereby incentivizing people to make huge amounts of crap submissions?
Running the thing as an enterprise would, well, turn it into an enterprise. There are indeed plenty of enterprises that function fine in this world, but every time this has been brought up I think everyone has basically been of the mind that it would create a gigantic bevy of entirely new tasks while not fully resolving existing tasks. jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

What to publish?

[edit]

I may be able to publish tonight (Pacific Time) but need clarity on what is in and what is out. It's hard to tell just from the annotations at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Article status, so here's my quick analysis.

Status Column(s) Notes
Definitely (marked EIC approved) Humour
Obituary
Recent research
Serendipity
Traffic report
On the bright side
WikiConference report
Disinformation report
Probably (no visible controversy, but not approved) In the media Pending copyedit
News and notes Pending copyedit
Maybe (ongoing discussion about inclusion) Opinion
Special report
Definitely not Technology report
Community view
By the numbers

I'll need to see some kind of consensus here before proceeding. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Bri and HaeB: I'm back. The above list is "perfect" in the "Definite" column, and in the "Definitely not" columns. The "Probably" column are just articles that ultimately *will be* approved given that we do the work. I'll start with copy editing them starting in 10 minutes. Both of those in the "Maybe" column are properly placed as well. I've given my opinion on "Opinion" and it's a somewhat reluctant "no" which I think HaeB agrees with. To me, the "Special report" is just too long at over 10,000 words. I used to have a loose limit of 3,000 words (nothing official), but have gone over 5,000 with an interview. But we need to actually work with the author and cut it by a half or 2 thirds! That's not something we can do tonight. It might wait a couple of weeks. Starting very soon on In the media CE. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks @Bri and JPxG: it looks like we all agree, with the possible exception of "Special report" which doesn't even have a proper place to express publication approval (if we wanted too). Maybe "postponed" is the easiest way to deal with it now. Job done? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am fine with postponing the opinion column. I actually think this could be interesting if it went into a little more detail on the actual RSN discussions, which are a thing that non-editors often consider to be quite weighty and find interesting to read about (and often think weird things about due to a lack of solid information). For now I would concur that it is not ready. The same for the special report, which, I don't know -- I am kind of still feeling burned over the last time we did something like this. I do not really object to what the writer has to say (I agree with some parts and disagree with others but it is fully within the realm of things that we should be talking about and publishing). The main thing for me is that people on here really, really do not want to read anything that came within ten feet of a language model, and I surmise they will resent it being placed in front of them (and us for placing it in front of them) no matter how many disclaimers are present. I predict this will completely dominate all discussion of the piece to the point where there the purpose of stimulating community discourse would not be attainable. Maybe I am wrong about this but I think if we do run it it should be discussed further here and we should come up with some really solid concept of why it's good before we run it. jp×g🗯️ 01:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
If there is general agreement on what is not ready, the ones marked for copyedit are done. The deadline was a couple days ago so I am going to go with what we have now. jp×g🗯️ 02:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. Running Wegweiser. jp×g🗯️ 02:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to all! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mobile image display

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our template for image display looks terrible on mobile. I believe this css should be added starting on line 177 here 


   @media screen and (max-width: 720px) {
       .signpost-sidebar-fillerimage {
           float: none;
           width: 100%;
           padding-left: 0;
           text-align: center;
       }
   }

However, it is template protected. I see @JPxG: made the page. Is someone here able to edit before publication or should I make a template protected edit request? Czarking0 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This might be interesting

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I just learned of meta:Community Wishlist/Community Wishlist 2027. It is the updated Community Wishlist process going for the next year or two. I don't know if I will be able to work on it, but if I can I'll do my best. I am thinking a full report on this, will see what happens. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have begun working on a piece for the next issue: User:Mitchsavl/SP Community Wishlist changes. As of yet, I am uncertain what column to put it in. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:13 Special report

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just took a quick scan over the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report. It's very long. But it's in four sections. Maybe it should be carried as a multi-part thing over more than one issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this should in part be edited down. If I ctrl+p I see 32 pages. About half of that is prose. Given that this is essentially an opinion piece I think limiting to about 5 pages of prose would be reasonable. This is especially because it is clearly AI written. AI written tends to be longer in a way that is not beneficial to the reader. Czarking0 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Consider footnote 7. Currently 93 words. It could be
Analytics data are fuzzed for privacy or unavailable for many languages. Geolocation incorrectly shows U.S., France, or Singapore for some data.
I don't think meaningful content in the 93-word footnote are lost in this proposed 20-word rewrite. Radical streamlining of more content would benefit the piece. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:13 publication date

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

October 3-4-5 feels about right to me. Anyone else? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:13 Op-ed

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is from a new Signpost contributor user:1F616EMO who is an experienced Chinese language Wikipedia editor zh:user:1F616EMO~nya. I am sharing here to request early feedback. I have asked them to provide images over the placeholders in there now.

They confirmed that they wrote the piece with their own ideas but did use AI for copyediting. I do not think this needs further disclosure for AI but if anyone has another opinion then share. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Author might want to check the difference between idioms "go off track" and "run off the rails". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
We should pay attention to the reasonable readers, that is, those who agree to our vision and code of conduct, the five pillars, policies and guidelines, and applicable consensuses. I would suggest that the wording around this be revised, I don't think that disagreeing with some aspects of Wikipedia makes a reader unreasonable, which is heavily implied by this statement. I do think this is a good article overall, but I think the tone could be revised a bit to be less exclusionary to those with a different perspective of the encyclopedia but can nonetheless be valuable contributors to the project. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry that I used the wrong word. Almost all "unreasonable" should be "improper", as in WP:CONACHIEVE: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised", and the implied counterpart - such a decision does not take into account any improper concerns raised. I wrote the essay with both Chinese and English Wikipedia in mind, and that resulted in awkward, non-native wordings. I will revise the essay later today to reflect this.
And by writing the essay, I did not mean to exclude those who raised improper concerns as a person, but to exclude those specific concerns and, as a precaution, be extra careful to other opinions they give. Of course, they can still contribute to our movement, given that they do not insist when it is better to move on, or put something into action to prove the community wrong.
The tone is intentionally exclusionary due to my Chinese Wikipedia background. On my home wiki, there is a surprisingly high tolerance to disrupters, that administrators often fail to prevent those who insist on improper concerns from further disrupting, repeat offenders are often released from a block on the sole basis of a simple promise, and the RfA/RfDA are vote-based. The tone could be revised, but the core idea should prevail: We, as stewards of our mission, should safeguard our projects from improper demands; we may advocate and invite them into our mission, and alternatively guide them to the correct venue, but if all efforts failed, we would have no choice but to force them away. 1F616EMO (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

22:13 Opinion

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A lot of users have said that the news was very concerning If I was writing this piece, I would not say this. I would say something more along the lines of Several users such as Username 1 and Username 2 indicated heightened concern for the reliability of CBS. I would then reach out to Username1 and Username 2 for comment and find new information about how they think about the future of news.Czarking0 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry didn't see this before, I didn't reached out yet, do you have anyone in mind for this piece? Or perhaps I can find some from the CBS RfC. Thanks again. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0