This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals for a feature, see Submissions. For general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SuggestionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SubmissionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

	Archives: 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, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
	This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2026-03-25 18:02:32 ( v t e ) Writing: 29 March 20:00 (5 days left; 26%) Publishing: 30 March 20:00 (6 days left; 30%) There are 4 days, 1 hour, 57 minutes and 28 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

I've posted my interview with Bernadette Meehan, the WMF's new CEO, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Interview. It needs formatting, links, etc. but other than that is complete. I'll look around ItM (which is fairly complete) and most other articles, doing copy editing and similar, but otherwise I have no other article to contribute for this issue. I was kinda expecting a disinfo report to pop up, but nothing truly new about Epstein appeared. I was thinking there was something simple about an executive order, but it turned out to be more complicated than I thought. So I'll finish what's on my plate and start anew for the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something did just pop up for the disinfo report. AI Translations Are Adding ‘Hallucinations’ to Wikipedia Articles from 404 Media, could be in ItM or disinfo report or both. There's lots of commentary on-Wiki as well. What makes it interesting to me is that, at first glance, OKA seems to take into account everything that needs to be taken into account, and then flunks out on each issue. Well, I'll have to see. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Regarding OKA, we have a submission proposal from them and I invited them to submit something describing their projects. This was before the 404 story was in development. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#OKA_Translation_Initiative

I cannot say whether they will finish a submission but they have the invitation. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Bluerasberry. You're doing good work trying to sort out all the Submissions. We do need to do a better job responding to all of these, including the "expressions of interest", i.e. the submissions that don't have a proposed article that are attached. @7804j: I'll assume that you don't have a proposed article yet and can't get one before Saturday. So we'll need to at least note the 404 Media article in this issue's In the media column. I may still do a Disinformation report in this issue, which will at least give you a starting point for responding to your critics. There are a great many interesting topics wound up in all of this, and some history to check out. So in about 3 weeks, will you have something solid for that issue? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could prepare a draft by end of day Saturday if this is still within delays? 7804j (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@7804j: the writing deadline is Saturday, March 7, for publication the next day (giving us time to format and copyedit it). I'll suggest you respond to the 404 Media story and to your on-Wiki critics. But first I suggest you give us the basics about yourself and the organization, why translating articles into English is your focus, etc. There will be something short in In the media about the 404 Media article, which should feed you some extra readers. Let us know if this works for you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'll share it by Saturday end of day latest then 7804j (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones I have finished the draft, which is now ready for review and copy-editing 7804j (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@7804j, JPxG, Bri, Bluerasberry, and HaeB: and all. I've posted it in the Opinion slot, changed the piccy (no logos please) and put the disclosure up top, but haven't really read it yet. That said I think it's ready for copy editing and maybe even approval (that's not my call of course - and is, as always, an open question (does it violate any rules or possibly be offensive to community norms?)). I think that's the last of a bunch of good or interesting articles from a good crop of new-to-The-Signpost writers. Copy editing, a bit more fact checking, and the final approval process should proceed apace, but I'm guessing it will take until Sunday afternoon.

For my personal interests, I'll suggest that the CEO interview should take pride of place as the 1st listed article, and that my COI disclosure at the end of Itm should be reviewed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. jp×g🗯️ 15:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When it rains, it pours. User:Polygnotus‬ submitted an article right after I finished the above. Which I thought about for awhile. While conceptually simple, he has a point to make and he makes it clearly. So I posted it to Op-ed. This is the last thing I'm going to post for this issue. Other than what I said above, I'll remain agnostic on whether to publish it. It's ready for copy editing (ignore the long table and it will be easy enuf to CE). The folks who make the big money here can decide on publishing well-enough. I'll take two aspirins and check in in the morning. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Meta-Wiki_compromised
• Wikipedia:Village_stocks#Scott_Bassett_for_the_Закрываем_проект_award
• Commons:Category:March 2026 Wikimedia hack

No idea of what has happened, but current rumor going around there is that the all-Wikimedia outage was due to a Wikimedia Foundation staff security person testing harmful scripts in live MediaWiki from an account with advanced permissions.

Whatever the situation, it is challenging to identify a single point of communication that is reliable. There are the discords, telegrams, all the wiki discussion forums, Phabricator tickets, and more. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From Eric Mill (WMF), posted to the Wikipedia discord #general

Hey all - as some of you have seen, we (WMF) were doing a security review of the behavior of user scripts, and unintentionally activated one that turned out to be malicious. That is what caused the page deletions you saw on the Meta log, which are getting cleaned up. We have no reason to believe any third-party entity was actively attacking us today, or that any permanent damage occurred or any breach of personal information. We were doing this security review as part of an effort to limit the risks of exactly this kind of attack. The irony of us triggering this script while doing so is not lost on us, and we are sorry about the disruption. But the risks in this system are real. We are going to continue working on security protections for user scripts – in close consultation with the community, of course – to make this sort of thing much harder to happen in the future.

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikinews has some more information. If you can read Russki yazik, it's helpful but machine translation isn't bad. The takeaway from that (probably using phabricator ticket for the case as a souce) is that the script, dormant since 2024, was "identical" to one used in a 2023 attack to another site (not Wikipedia) ascribed to РАОрг. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that the story here is consistent with everything I understand or have read about the situation. We might just quote Eric Mill if others find him credible. Of course much of the technical material is way over my head. The only thing I might add is that the part about the invisible picture of the woodpecker should become a classic. "PAOpr" is likely a Russian organization's abbreviation (or spoof of) something like "Inc.-pr". I'm off to find an invisible woodpecker! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten my greasy mitts on the actual script, which I will be pawing through later to see what the hell it did. jp×g🗯️ 12:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell from general rumblings, this was mostly a footgun incident, with the userscript in question being some kind of skiddie contraption made as part of a puerile beef between two non-Wikimedia sites that was randomly hosted in somebody's userspace, which coincidentally ended up causing a massive shitstorm when somebody on the site in question made some edits to their common.js to import every single userscript on the site and then run it with elevated privileges. jp×g🗯️ 12:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry We did post a statement to Meta about it as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Product_and_Technology/Product_Safety_and_Integrity/March_2026_User_Script_Incident EMill-WMF (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is in the article now. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the columns for the next issue, which is to release tomorrow.

Recent research appears that it will not be ready for the release.

News and notes does not have a lede or a subheading, and an update to #brief notes.

In the media needs a headline and an expansion on the section on the recent security incident, currently has no lead, needs clean-up of the #in brief section, and has not yet been marked as ready for copyediting.

As well as that, the Traffic report is not yet marked as ready for copyediting, the Obituary does not have a lede. No columns are marked as having the copyedit done (though various users have done some copyediting on them), nor do they have final approval.

I have only listed articles as not having a lede where the default highlighted message is present.

Mitchsavl (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchsavl, HaeB, and JPxG: Thanks for the nudge Mitch! Pretty standard for recent issues, but yes, we need to improve on recent issues. HaeB has been doing Recent research since the 1980s or so and is the least of our problems. Bri will be less available than usual, so we shouldn't expect the usual miracles. Time for the rest of us to step up to the plate. I'm working on Itm right now, and will take on Traffic report issues after that tonight. If JPxG is absent, please don't stand on ceremony. just roll up your sleeves and pitch in. At Itm and News & notes, just complete unfinished stories as needed. Otherwise, copy editing is usually the main chore at this point. Then what's needed tomorrow will take shape. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

removed unused lede highlight, added ominous blurb for News and notes. Mitchsavl (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Comix? I think there are a bunch ready, but none appear in the mockup. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are ready to go, as far as I know, so any damn one will work as well as the rest; the only special technique needed is to move it without a redirect (which a pagemover/admin can clear up later and won't hold up publication). jp×g🗯️ 14:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At JP's suggestion I selected the next one in the default sort order presented by Special/Prefix or whatever, and promoted it to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Comix. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly expanded Bri's section at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#Site(s) locked to editing after security error unleashes computer worm to at least be a few sentences, and claimed joint ownership for the section. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added a lede to this article, too. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what I can. I may be able to make some last-minute edits if absolutely necessary, but ideally there will be at least a few hours of buffer time. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really back yet but I did a little copyediting just now. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Mitchsavl for nudging things along (this is a useful way to contribute to the Signpost in the run-up to the deadline).

Given the current article statuses, I went ahead and moved the deadline to a more realistic estimate, although per Smallbones' "Sunday afternoon" guess it may need to be moved further.

I'm indeed working to get RR ready by the (updated) deadline; here is the usual todo list etherpad and as always contributions are welcome. For context, as Signpost regulars are likely aware, this section works a bit differently e.g. in that it depends on preparatory work that various folks are involved in (some of whom have have been less available than usual recently).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the sections have been copyedited, but not marked as such, and the other content may be ready by that updated publishing time. If the recent research isn't done on time, it may have to wait for the following issue (depending on how that all works). I may be able to do a little bit of work on the Recent research, to help speed it up a little. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of progress since the above was written, I have updated the deadline estimate further, while still keeping it a bit more optimistic than Smallbones' guess. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more expansion to my section. The article is definitely more complete now than it was earlier, It will still need a thumbnail and some cleanup before publishing, but content wise, I think it is adequete. Mitchsavl (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or for worse or for worse or for worst, I think Smallbones was right on the money with Sunday evening. jp×g🗯️ 15:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Drafts/Opinion from the queue for this issue, per its introductory note. I am not really interested in a repeat of the last incident. Whether it is a vocal minority or a full movement, on Wikipedia there exists a ferocious distaste for these computer programs and the text that comes out of them (even in comparison to other types of highly online netizens). In this case, it is even more guaranteed to produce great rancor, since the actual issue of controversy it discusses is allegations of insufficiently-reviewed LLM output. jp×g🗯️ 13:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to publish something on this subject and would be open to some revised version of this in a future issue, but publishing it as-is is a fairly predictable route to a bunch of people becoming extremely angry at it, its author, and its publisher (us) and very few of them reading it or considering the stuff it says. jp×g🗯️ 15:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I'm not not familiar with the previous incident you mentioned, could you share more context on what happened? I had actually added this disclaimer at the top because I saw it was done in a previous Signpost.

  I actually did spend many hours working on this piece, especially due to the sensitivity, so it is by far not an "LLM generated" article but rather an article written with the assistance of an LLM. It is also in part due to the sensitivity that I wanted to use an LLM to review my content and provide feedback, copy-editing, etc.

  Are you saying that the Signpost is introducing (formally or informally) a ban on the use of LLM for the creation of articles, or are you saying that you have specific concerns about parts of this piece that would require more copy-editing? If it's the latter, I'm happy to further refine it for the next edition if you can provide some pointers on your main concerns. If it's the former, then maybe that could be officialized as a policy?

  (as a side note, I understand that this is a topic on which people have very strong views, so I do expect strong sentiments regardless of how this article is written, but I also feel like this is the reason why it's important for these topics to get discussed openly rather than "cancelled" due to a vocal minority. It's also a bit what I'm trying to get at in the conclusion of my article -- that if we do nothing and aren't able to have productive discussions on how to adopt these tools, Wikipedia will be "forced" to become a source of data for LLMs)

  @Smallbones @Bluerasberry FYI 7804j (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@7804j: Let's please consider it for publication in the next issue. This is the second time someone submitted LLM-supported material, and in the first case, the content being AI-supported was a major distraction to the subject of the piece. We would like the focus of the story to be your ideas. To see the history of this, check

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-01-15/Special report
• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#LLM_and_the_Signpost

We do not have a policy about LLM submission because we do not know what to say about it. In the meantime, if you could please consider a request, could you look over the piece again and confirm it all to be your ideas and your words. Thank you for submitting the piece, and thanks for going to the extra trouble of submitting it quickly. I am in agreement with the others though - there is already a bias toward AI. I want you, your project, and OKA to be judged on their own merits, and do not want to create a situation where you take the blame for problems with other AI tools, completely unrelated to you or anything you have done.

We are well-meaning to you to delay till next issue for more editorial review. If you have questions ask. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:Diff/1342364502, it looks like we have about four hours left for final copyedit and cleanup. There are a lot of sections prepared and about a dozen are standing ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simulated publishing (via script) runs without any errors, so that's good. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is ready except copyediting on the interview, ce on traffic report (do we need to make an official statement on every single AP2 issue?), moving up the global read-only in N&N since it was deffo the most important thing that happened, run interview first, itm is done everything else is done. I don't want to halfass copyediting on the interview but @Smallbones: it is your call whether I run it now or do proper ce in hte morning.

Big ups to the HVAC control software for being a giant worthless pile of trash so that after I spend all night rewiring motor contactors it just won't render its own webUI so I can open the fucking dampers. In fact I am still reinitializing the area controllers in the other window and it is still a piece of garbage that doesn't work! Thanks Compass 2.1!!! jp×g🗯️ 13:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

N&N story reorder done as recommended. I'm not sure about the new title or the piccy, others are welcome to revisit. By the way did anyone else notice Crossword appears twice at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Article status? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: On the interview - we definitely should NOT copyedit Bernadette's words in the interview - they are parts of quotes, and have already been copyedited at WMF. That only leaves copy editing my words, which are a fairly small part of the whole and unimportant and I'm comfortable with my mistakes. In short, publish at will. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this, my only text change was The New York Times from the New York Times. Assume that's OK with everybody. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, Bri and I understand each other perfectly on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I noticed that Crossword appears twice. BTW, should the answers be hidden like this: XXXXX? Currently the actual answers are hidden behind the black bar. mdm.bla 17:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is our new convention. You can change it, or I will if it's still that way next time I come back. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done mdm.bla 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, op-ed also appears a second down the bottom in its own seperate area. Mitchsavl (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank everyone who turned out to help put this issue together. It looks very full of content – and we had a good chance to make it look its best. I'll be handing out Signpost barnstars to everyone who contributed; you earned it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've got a gallery that could go in the April issue. ↠Pine (✉) 04:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: go for it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This draft seems a bit misplaced under "Tips and tricks", given that it focuses much more on evaluating progress and celebrating achievements of a particular effort than on providing our readers with actionable advice. Does anyone have ideas for a better section to run it under? Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: I put it there because it is a follow up of a story from a year ago which was in tips and tricks. But correct - this follow-up is more telling progress than giving tips.

Other columns could be "concept" or "special report"; make a choice and I support. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to In_focus. jp×g🗯️ 15:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these should get caught up on for 2026 (the typical way being to copy them from WP:RIP and edit to standard). Particularly, I am wounded to learn of the passing of User:Psihedelisto, a postin' pal of mine who I guess died a couple weeks ago, but there are others from 2026 as well. jp×g🗯️ 15:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it started is no problem and I'll do it. It looks like the last one we did was December and included Michal Lewi (Iwelam) and Alan R. King (A R King). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied in. The authorship was retained as a Signpost style author signature where I could determine it was done by an individual. @Buster7, Graham87, Vitorperrut555, Novem Linguae, and Mimyuu: Please tell me if you want authorship credit in The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I want VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thank you. Mimyuu (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitorperrut555 and Mimyuu: Done. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, same. Graham87 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Done. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is basically the way I do it (the revision history of the yearly subpages at WP:RIP basically always shows the process of writing it). jp×g🗯️ 01:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Content_guidance#Obituary has a little dynamically-generated set of links to make this easier (the auto-updating current-year obits page, its revision history, and the list of previous Signpost obits). jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can skip adding me as an author. It's hard to tell without the source link and the signpost draft link, but I think I just made trivial copy edits to the source. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary, page history of WP:Deceased Wikipedians/2026 ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more coverage appeared about the March security incident.

• https://podcasts.apple.com/mz/podcast/06-mar-2026-wikipedia-worm-mayhem-fbi-cyber-breach/id1745708421?i=1000753528489
• https://securityonline.info/the-ruwiki-sleeper-how-a-slumbering-javascript-worm-paralyzed-wikipedias-global-infrastructure/
  • The text is florid but I ran it through an GPTZero and most of it is genuine human
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/wikipedia-forced-to-lock-down-edits-over-javascript-that-could-delete-pages/ar-AA1XDWVj

Not having time to scan this, I'm happy leaving the current ITM as is. Bri.public (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

@Bri: The podcast is AI, the second link I think is AI or not original. The third link is PSMag syndicated, and we are already linking to the original publication of the piece. So I think nothing here to add. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly two years before this attack happened, I wrote User:NYKevin/Interface administrators and trusting trust, which explains in quite a bit of detail how this kind of attack works, and what the worst-case scenario might look like. I dropped that link in the initial VPT discussion, but I suspect it may have got lost in the shuffle. (I will not be personally advertising this link anywhere else, because twice is enough, but if someone finds it useful and wants to share it, I'm not going to object to that.)

I'm not sure everyone fully grasps just how lucky we were. If the worm had been more sophisticated, we might not have noticed that anything was wrong for days or even weeks. Not sure if it's worth trying to incorporate any of that background into the existing coverage, but leaving it here in case anyone wants to use it. --NYKevin 21:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a private email: I have no objection to anyone moving this essay into projectspace. If that would make it easier to include in this or a future issue, please feel free to do that without further consultation (and link to this comment if anyone questions it). --NYKevin 22:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was mentioned elsewhere on the newsroom ... NYKevin's piece was published as WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/Opinion. - Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we can squeeze it in, I found this interesting: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 88#Heads-up on WP access in Iran. Bri.public (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC) @Bri and JPxG: I've added the following at News and notes (just above In brief)[reply]

Iranians need news

Three Iranians have stopped by Talk:Timeline of the 2026 Iran war thanking Wikipedians for providing news in the article that is otherwise unavailable. Communications and access to the normal news sources is down or blocked within Iran, but surprisingly enWiki is getting through. The requests for more news were also taken to The village pump. Editors have been advised to make sure to follow WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Published. That was a pretty thoroughly good issue, thanks to everybody involved. I even wrote something for once in my damn life. jp×g🗯️ 04:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is next issue 30 March feasible? That is approximately three weeks away. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Mailing list posts done. Andreas JN466 20:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

c:file:ExAdminMop.jpg appears to be AI generated. I would highly recommend refraining from using AI content on the Signpost where practical. Some Wikipedians have strong opinions on AI, and when it is used, it can detract from the content of the article. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, people are going to go totally apeshit if that ends up running in a gallery. jp×g🗯️ 09:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: There's gotta be something else we can use for that, right? There is going to be like 60kb of dung on the talk page if that runs. jp×g🗯️ 10:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitchsavl and JPxG: while making changes to the gallery, I replaced that image in order to comply with JPxG's request, but I prefer the previous one. On principle, I don't object to using generated content if it's an improvement over alternatives and there aren't legal problems with using the generated content. By the way, Mitchsavl, please ping me if you have some feedback regarding a Signpost piece that I'm working on. I might not have seen this comment until much later if JPxG hadn't pinged me. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 04:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed today that Cree Wikipedia and Greenlandic Wikipedia were closed in September. Maybe I missed an announcement... but don't think I ever saw this covered in The Signpost either. Bri.public (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the "Sister projects" column might be a good place to catch up; the last one was run in 2024. Bri.public (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Smallbones: who previously commented on this piece, but everyone invited to react to this submission

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Opinion

Previously discussed in

• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#re:OKA
• Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Tomorrow's_Issue

This was submitted in last issue, but not published for reasons including the author's use of AI. They have since revised the submission and put their own human review and intention backing it.

If anyone has feedback on this then please speak up. I think the topic and subject matter is interesting, and know it will attract reader comments. I wish that the focus of the article could be on its content and not the author's disclosure of the use of AI in writing it. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I staged this submission at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. There may be feedback to address but the author has revised.

There was a recent major Wikimedia community decision about acceptable AI, and both apply to this piece. This decision recommends that authors can use AI to copyedit their own writing, which has happened here, and to assist with translation, which is also relevant to this piece. I would like to find an acceptable way to review this piece and publish it. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BR, thanks for keeping on top of this. I started copyediting and will return later. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could make a nice mention in the next news and notes. I found the line "reads like it could have been contributed by a graduate history student" interesting because I started editing Wikipedia as a graduate student. When I have gone to snoop user pages I have been surprised by the high number of regular editors with post-secondary education. I would think the majority of GA have been at least edited by someone with post-secondary education. Though I may be biased because I do not edit sports or celebrities. Czarking0 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times published a piece today on activity by Epstein's PR/reputation management team. I added it to In the media. Though it doesn't credit Smallbones or The Signpost, it almost reads like they used our recent coverage as a starting point. Bri.public (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They do reference Smallbones/The Signpost, albeit via embedded link: Team members created networks of fake Wikipedia editing accounts, sometimes known as sock puppets, to sneak changes past administrators, whose accounts they also tried to disrupt by hacking. Wracking ^talk! 21:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that! Well, congratulations to us. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this @Bri and Wracking:. I saw the NYT article yesterday and have greatly modified my original opinion of it since seeing Wracking's comment on it here! Bri's write-up in ITM seems fair enough, I guess, but might also be modified. I'll add (for this talk page only) that almost everybody loves seeing some credit for their work in a paper like the NYT. It just affirms that what they are doing is worthwhile - which is all Signpost writers get "paid" for our contributions here. While complaints about not being credited are understandable, they are generally not worthwhile. Not all journalists have the time or skills needed to understand the contributions of others (see, e.g. an ITM item about The Times (of London) a couple of issues ago).

I do expect to have a Disinfo report for this issue, but there are still some remaining unusual difficulties left to be ironed out. It should be IMHO (!) one of my best.

I'll leave it there. Thanks again B & W. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a Jerusalem Post story and a bare description of the subject, the IRGC. The story is about the IRGC-controlled media used as citations tens of thousands of times in four language versions of Wikipedia including enwp. The Post to their credit described the methodology well: they put together some kind of database query to get quantitative data on how many times 21 specific domains were cited. Unfortunately they did not list all the domains, but maybe they would talk to one of our reporters.

To do a spot check, I created a similar database query here, but with only five domains that were specifically mentioned. If we get the fuller list of domains, I'd be happy to update the database query.

It looks like the Reliable sources noticeboard has had a few discussions of IRGC reliability, none of them positive. I created another query here for use of over 100 IRGC-owned Internet domains that were seized by the FBI in 2020 and are still used as citations. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]