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/Suggestions and Wikipedia 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
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-04-02 17:25:25 ( v t e ) Writing: 4 April 02:00 (2 days left; 15%) Publishing: 5 April 02:00 (3 days left; 21%) There is 1 day, 8 hours, 34 minutes and 35 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2025-04-02 17:25:25.
March 2025 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 24 25 26 27 28 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	April 2025 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	May 2025 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 (talk  · chat)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content + resources Formatting (cheatsheet) Style Technical (talk)
Recent changes: main · talk
Newsletters
v t e

It seems the last time we actually had an obituary was some time around July. Not optimal. The obvious thing would be to just shove everyone into a single obituary to catch us up, but this feels somewhat disrespectful -- one editor gets a whole article if they happen to die while we're caught up, and otherwise they are one in a list of seven? However, it occurs to me that the rate at which people die (or at least the rate at which [[WP:RIP|new entries are added to the list of deceased editors) is not very fast -- we do 4 issues every 3 months, and there have been seven obituaries at WP:RIP between last July and now, so I think that just doing one or two per issue would catch us up through all of them in the next three issues, without having to crowd it up too much. I am doing two for this issue; the next issue should be Wardxmodem and Afil, then after that TomCat4680 and JarrahTree, then after that Yashthepunisher -- and anyone who is added after that (note that they are not always strictly chronologically added, as someone can just stop editing for a while and it is only found out they've passed away later). jp×g🗯️ 10:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Sounds good, thank you for reporting this. Oltrepier (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've prepped an obit for next issue and next next issue. Still needs to have some formatting, title, and actual authors put in (e.g. the poeple who actually wrote them on WP:RIP, not me who just created the page). jp×g🗯️ 02:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Since the deadline for next issue hasn't been agreed to, yet, I just wanted to let you know that any choice would be fine to me: I've resumed uni classes, so I won't have much spare time, anyway... : D Oltrepier (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly picked a mid March Sunday for publication amd reset the timer. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be a Monday, actually ;)

But thanks for jumping in there. (We should look again at having the publication script automatically set a default publication date for the upcoming issue.)

@JPxG can you confirm you will be available to finalize and publish this issue tonight? Otherwise it would be good to update the deadline template and/or initialize the usual contingency plans (assuming Bri could take on publication).

Right now e.g. ITM still looks very drafty and N&N hasn't even been started yet. RR already has one item that folks are welcome to copyedit, I hope to have the rest up in publishable soon too, but more likely by like 4:00 UTC. I could then also help out with wrapping up ITM if needed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on some code that, if finished, might make some stuff easier. I guess we will have to see what we got. jp×g🗯️ 00:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given the current state of the issue (6 out of 8 draft sections not even yet marked as "Ready for copyedit"), I just took the liberty of moving the deadline by a day - feel free to adjust with a more precise estimate. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking this myself. There is some very good stuff in this issue, though, so I think it will be good-- just needs some time, which I shall have tomorrow. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started News and notes, but it doesn't really have any content other than two RfAs to report. I won't have hurt feelings if it's held over. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: Well, there was a lot of news about the Le Point situation in France, as I reported previously, but maybe that's more suitable for ITM.

On a side note, I apologize for almost missing out entirely on this issue: my uni schedule is getting pretty hectic! Oltrepier (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There sure is more material worth covering, e.g. [1] (in particular the CentralNotice policy changes) and [2] (in particular recent lawsuits we haven't covered yet). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I'll try to go through and copy-edit some of the articles (at the very least) later tonight. Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Greenlandic_Wikipedia There's this, there's also the lightning fast admin recall, also that big resysopping thing at BN. jp×g🗯️ 01:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Village_pump#March_2025_update_from_WMF_Legal_on_"Vogue_Taiwan_and_possible_Copyright_Washing"_discussion, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AI_images jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides these, I have another hopefully interesting piece for N&N almost written up, which should help in providing this section with enough substance for publication. I should be able to post that in about 10h from now and also get RR into publishable shape. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I have finished the software to look at the noticeboards and village pumps, I think there is probably some recent stuff we can use for N&N. Unfortunately it took quite a bit longer than I expected, as I am now completely pooped. The issue has a lot of good stuff I would like to expand on a little and then it looks like it will be good to roam.

I would exhort everyone to take a look in the collapser down here and see if there's anything worth throwing in there... I plan to write some more on these for the next issue's discussion report (as we have basically stopped having those except as occasional features) but we could spare some for this one as well. jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Wow, there were a lot of threads in there! My humble guess is that either the Kash Patel situation or the discussion about suspected POV pushing of the Iranian government would be the most interesting topic to discuss. Oltrepier (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uh, no notice on this, and I didn't get any either: I have apparently been scheduled for three back-to-back shifts with zero notice on the days I was supposed to have off, including the day I have to drive two hours the other direction for a DMV appointment I had to wait a month for which is necessary to register my vehicle -- hell yeah dude that's awesome. Well I guess I am just sleeping in my fucking car tonight so you will have to publish without me. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Well, that's a shame... but don't worry, we'll be fine! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing challenge accepted!

I've reset the publication countdown to Friday evening (my time; US Pacific), and have done some copyediting. News and notes is still open for editing if somebody can get more content there. I'd like to declare In the media done, unless something really big comes up. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to run Wegweiser (which populates the module database and enables e.g. the single-talk page to work) because the scripts are on my computer and I will be sleeping in my car today and possibly tomorrow. As a stopgap it is also possible to populate the module database with SignpostTagger. I believe SPS.js is working properly and you should be able to use it without issue. One of the problems a few issues ago was that there was a redirect in the Next issue space, but all other script bugs are fixed. jp×g🗯️ 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking all the articles as approved but make sure they are c/ed before running (if not already). Particularly the obit needs to have its original authors filled. jp×g🗯️ 07:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bestimmt ☆ Bri (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another story to N&N (and removed the story placeholder). It could still use some copyediting - in particular to style the quotes consistently - and an image and a more interesting headline would be nice. But it should otherwise be publishable already. Note though that the "Brief notes" section still has two open TKTKs.

I can look into those things myself later, but should first get the rest of R&R up (to Bri's question below: I will have something publishable by the deadline, although I could also make use of some more time if that happens to be the case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that publication will be on the first full day following the Northern Hemisphere's spring equinox. Maybe a related quick note from the editor is appropriate? Any ideas? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Maybe a Hanami-style note would be fun enough?

By the way, I wanted to copy-edit ITM a little more, since I haven't managed to do anything in thr last few days (I'm so sorry for that...). Oltrepier (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice idea for an angle. As a by-the-way, I'm surprised the Hanami article doesn't mention Seattle (shown in my picture here); it has deep historical connections to Japan.

@JPxG: I don't know if you are able, but if you want to take over From the editor draft, it's yours. Otherwise I'll probably get some more publishable text in there tonight. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @JPxG Fancy a suggestion for a spring-themed haiku, too?

I've got one by Kobayashi Issa (it's on the Italian Wikiquote, by the way): "Plum flowers: | it's an ecstasy | my spring". Oltrepier (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated the haiku, thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I'm comfortable approving Traffic report, In the media, Recent research, and News and notes, and of course my own From the editor(s). But did you want to retain say-so over the Opinion item? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, Isaacl, and Adam Cuerden: copyeditors listed at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/About: can we get help copyediting on open sections including In the media by the Friday deadline? Most particularly, In the media and News and notes ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time today. No promises, but I'll see what I can do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll do my best, as well! Oltrepier (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting just a bit longer before publishing, to see if any volunteer copyediting happens on In the media or News and notes. It will be tonight, though (Pacific Time). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK everybody, please stay out of the pages until it is published. I will start in about 10 minutes. @Smallbones: apologies in advance but I'm going to chicken out and wait for JPxG's approval on the Opinion piece you authored. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any feedback or seen any complaints, could you let me know what the hangup is? It's an opinion piece so there is a little leeway - I do get to state my own opinion! Will it be published late? Like say an hour late? Waiting for three weeks again (without an answer!) - I would not consider that to be acceptable. Sorry to send my complaint to you @Bri:. Are we going to hear from @JPxG: within an hour? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the publishing script without the Opinion sorry. There was an error during the page moves, but I think I straightened it out manually. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checked some talkpage subscribers, looks good. I'm going to hang up the PC until tomorrow. Happy weekend, all! ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I just sent you an email. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion by Smallbones is good and should be run -- I thought I had gotten to it when I was going over the submissions. jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it has already run. Shit! I thought the deadline was the 22nd still... jp×g🗯️ 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am moving boxes for the next seven hours so I cannot do anything about this. God damn it -- @Smallbones this is my fault, apologies. jp×g🗯️ 07:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and JPxG: per my talk page, let's retropublish it asap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (see below), with my feathers completely smoothed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the new addition announced via a watchlist notice? I didn't see it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The script added a request under my name, but it hasn't been acted on yet. To my knowledge, I can't just do it myself, with my permissions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It got acted on starting 24 March for 7-day appearance. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See he:Special:Diff/40638036. WMF have redacted - but not oversighted several comments made in 2014, based on a court order. GZWDer (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GZWDer: - thanks for letting us know about this. I'll also send an email to legal and try to get a statement. Just to ask a couple of small specific questions and get any statements you wish to make.

I've tried to get a sense of what this is all about by reading about half of the 68 page file linked at GZWDer's link (just the first 21 pages and the last 8 pages). This note is to let other Signposters see if this is an article that they'd like to write up. It will be difficult IMHO, but has lots of things in it that most editors can relate too.

It doesn't seem to be related to India, heritage, Elon Musk, etc.

This is a first impression of less than half of the above material, and there is no guarantee that it is correct (i.e. something like a draft of a pre-draft first draft written on the back of a napkin)

The story is about a user back in 2014 that seemed to have won a court decision (or maybe it just took a long time to get thru the courts the first time!) But this decision was written very recently. It's all about the HeWiki, nothing about ENwiki, nothing about the current war, apparently nothing about politics (?). The user had some claim to be a productive editor but ran into problems with other editors, something like what an LTA might run into. Defamation settlement (I didn't see any money involved) requires some apologies and removal of material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've provided a reply to your email to legalwikimedia.org. Cheers, BChoo (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An English translation of the court order by WMF attorneys. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small clarification: as per the file description, it was "Translated from the original Hebrew by external sender." BChoo (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth 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) 06:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: Deadline is coming up. Shall we publish what we have now, or wait? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very long time ago, I wrote some software that could retrieve noticeboard/VP threads (active and archived), and parse them for metadata (length, timestamps, users mentioned/signatures present, as well as the actual text etc). I am thinking that this may be useful for outlining skeletons for discussion reports: a script that just answers the question of "what the hell were people talking about the last couple of weeks?"

I think part of the reason this column is hard to write is because it not only requires analysis and writing about the actual discussions, but also a great deal of trawling through mountains of quotidian "hey guys there's a vandal" filings to unearth stuff that actually has an impact on the editing community in some way.

What do you all think of this? jp×g🗯️ 17:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like "quotidian". But more seriously, maybe we should just start running the scripts and seeing "if you build it, they will come", where they are interested in writing the column. Another idea -- we did an experiment with LLM (AI) summaries in the past, would the EiC be in favor of continuing the experiment with this? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the word "quotidian" also. In French "quotidien" (or "journal quotidien" in full), logically enough, means daily newspaper. Just like the English "daily" for "daily newspaper". I just checked my memory and the Google AI confirmed it. If we want to write more about our daily activities (which I'm not against) we'd probably need at bit of AI (which I'm just a bit skeptical about). Run the bot, store the output where people can browse (but not part of the newspaper), and let people know we have it in case they want to write an article and *check every AI detail*. This may make it more, not less, time consuming, but it wouldn't be a bad experiment. Make sure to label it "AI aided" or similar up top. Now how are we going to make that announcement? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of how the output of such a script would look like concretely? But yes, in generally I agree it would be useful to experiment more with automation there, including LLM summaries (especially considering that technology has progressed quite a bit since e.g. these 2022 experiments), as an intermediate tool followed by manual review. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after quite a bit of sifting through manure and remembering API stuff, I have in my hand a list of 1,395 Village Pump threads from the last couple archives of each, ostensibly since the beginning of this year (although archives on slow-moving boards can go back pretty far). There are some, uh, quirks: mostly that I have not finished writing the software, so it does not work very well and a bunch of stuff is manual.

Nonetheless, sorting by length gives at least a very obvious solid basis for some stuff we could write about. Here are the top 40 for example: jp×g🗯️ 11:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pump	Section	Size
WP:VPP	LLM/chatbot comments in discussions	263647
WP:VPP	Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS	235898
WP:VPR	RfC: Extended confirmed pending changes (PCECP)	121536
WP:VPIL	Opt-in content warnings and image hiding	110752
WP:VPP	Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?	105874
WP:VPR	CheckUser for all new users	89323
WP:VPM	Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors	86482
WP:VPP	RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation	82290
WP:VPIL	What do we want on the front page?	66420
WP:VPR	Survey (PCECP)	62465
WP:VPIL	Fix Draftification with a new template	62205
WP:VPP	Can we hide sensitive graphic photos?	62089
WP:VPP	RfC: Amending ATD-R	61677
WP:VPP	Administrator Recall	58044
WP:VPIL	Dealing with sportspeople stubs	58043
WP:VPIL	Determining who should be an electionadmin	55386
WP:VPWMF	Will you be moving operations overseas?	53350
WP:VPIL	New users, lack of citation on significant expansion popup confirmation before publishing	52862
WP:VPP	We need to fix the admin recall process	50922
WP:VPM	Is football player contract expires means still registered in a football club?	49909
WP:VPWMF	Responding to Katherine Maher / Uri Berliner Story	47220
WP:VPIL	Avoiding a long month of drama	45770
WP:VPT	VPNgate blocking bot	42663
WP:VPR	Reviving / Reopening Informal Mediation (WP:MEDCAB)	40745
WP:VPM	Reliable sources controversy	39831
WP:VPR	Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?	38023
WP:VPIL	Describing Notability in plain English	34912
WP:VPR	Page views link in the Tools menu	33511
WP:VPWMF	Proposal: WMF should hire a full-time developer to do basic maintenance on MediaWiki	33293
WP:VPIL	Implemeting "ChatBot Validation" for sentences of Wikipedia	32052
WP:VPWMF	Let's configure: Suggested Edits	30274
WP:VPR	Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus	29598
WP:VPP	Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline	29376
WP:VPR	Proposal to update WP:NBAND to be explicitly constrained by WP:GNG	28968
WP:VPP	General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed	28313
WP:VPR	RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source	27733
WP:VPIL	Creating Template:Wikidata Infobox	27288
WP:VPIL	Can we consider EC level pending changes?	27229
WP:VPP	The real use case for AI on Wikipedia	27196
WP:VPR	Redesigning locks and other icons	26566

The links do not work properly because I copied this out of a text file and haven't finished the thing that makes it output correctly, but the general idea is here. Compare to, e.g. a random selection of stuff from e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201, which is almost all stuff of no account, I think this provides a pretty good basis for actual writing. I don't really have time to actually write stuff out of it for this issue, but I think it is at least something. jp×g🗯️ 11:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does look useful (obviously one would want to confine it to more recent ones; looks like these results go back almost a year or more - but I assume that's on the agenda). I would consider including the number of editors who commented as an additional metric. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is now fixed, and I ran it over everything from 2025 -- sortable table (that counts first timestamp, last timestamp, discussion size, signature count and unique userlinks) is at Special:Permalink/1281329629.

I put in a top story for an Anti-Defamation League report that I don't have time to summarize or even read fully. However, I suggest that the writer consider this for incorporation.

ADL applied analytics to the set of what they call 30 bad faith pro-Hamas editors to highlight unusual editing patterns. One result was that they edited more actively than other groups, even a group of editors involved in the PIA topic, and a similarly sized group randomly selected from the 5,000 most active English Wikipedians. The "bad faith" editors as a whole were about 50% more active than the next most active group, measured by total edits over the past 10 years. The top 5 "bad faith" editors were also 40% more active than the next most active group, measured by edits per day undertaken by the top 5 editors in control groups. Evidence said to indicate coordinated editing included a "tandem editing" metric, which looked at edits made by group members within an hour of each other on the same page over the last ten years. In this metric, the "bad faith" group made over 50% more "tandem" edits than the PIA group (71,855 versus 45,925), and almost 150 times as many than the most-active Wikipedians control group (486).

☆ Bri (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Thank you for the suggestion.

By the way, who wrote the other stories? I don't see any reference to that... (tagging @Smallbones and @Bluerasberry for consideration). Oltrepier (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added – S to about half of both halves of Itm. I think they mostly wrote themselves this month, so anybody should remove my initial and/or add their own if they feel like it. The 2 Gaza related stories aren't really my work. BTW, I put my take on the ADL story on User talk:Jimbo Wales which I guess addresses Bri's comment above, but it's not journalism. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Press#Does_Anti-Defamation_League,_specifically_Editing_for_Hate:_How_Anti-Israel_and_Anti-Jewish_Bias_Undermines_Wikipedia’s_Neutrality_fit_in_this_template?, if you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding for next issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved verbatim to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I don't know if you covered that in the last issue already, but it might be useful to use one of the lead-story slots for recent media coverage of the fr.wiki vs Le Point case, as QuicoleJR and I suggested a while ago...

Surely some more updates have emerged in the meantime. Oltrepier (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A news source has posted a dossier relating to Tech for Palestine (as in this). We'll have to decide what to do with it for The Signpost. I'm not even sure if it's OK to post a link. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have identified ~ 250 edits done due to TfP -I have more edits in a single day, at times. I believe the expression is " A storm in a teacup"? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to republish to include the 21:4 Opinion. Would this entail moving articles back to "next issue" and re-running the publishing script? Or manually inserting Opinion into the main page? I think the first option would result in two mass messages which may ruffle feathers. The second would not update the contents page delivered to talkpages. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added Opinion to the issue and the main table of contents at WP:POST. There's a couple more manual steps to go... ☆ Bri (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added Opinion to archive TOC at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-03-22.

I attempted to update Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2025-03-22 by purging the page with the link at the bottom, but it is not updating. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Opinion is showing up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2025-03-22. Must have been some kind of caching delay.

Next step, I'll prepare a new mass-message to notify talkpage deliverees that there's a new section, but I won't send it until it's been discussed. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much @Bri and JPxG: I understand the extra work involved and appreciate it. The last step, about sending a new talkpage message sounds to me like a step too far. It was just an oversight which was corrected and I don't want to magnify it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) that works for me Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered the mass message, I don't think it is necessary because the single-page TOC appears to be transcluded to the subscribers' talkpages, and has magically updated already. So, I think we're done with re-publishing! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, transcluding the page onto the talkpage MMS makes it possible to do stuff like correct typos (or in this case retropublish) without spamming thousands of edits and blowing up everyone's notifications. The main drawback is the difficulty of doing it manually, and also that the email and global message delivery doesn't include it. Ah well. I have just gotten home and I see that everything has been done -- I've also run the script to update the modules. Thanks to everyone!! jp×g🗯️ 16:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this goes without saying, but this kind of "retropublishing" should remain a very rare exception, for many reasons. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is corrosive to the soul, yes. jp×g🗯️ 02:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be putting random stuff here that I see of note. jp×g🗯️ 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added one ☆ Bri (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a nice update about the WikiWikiWeb anniversary! Oltrepier (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri I definitely won't be able to go through that whole interview with Cunningham, but if you can, I hope it will be helpful! Oltrepier (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south (114 articles batched -- is that a record?)
• WikiWikiWeb, the first wiki, launched March 25, 1995, 30 years ago; can we include this? It was not noted at WP:OTD. There's some coverage about this in the media, as well, and the wiki's founder, Ward Cunningham, has recently been interviewed by Yaron Koren on the "Between the Brackets" podcast!

See m:Special:Log/WMFOffice - more than 7000 accounts are locked today. GZWDer (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any announcements about this on wikimedia-l or elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#More_than_29,000_accounts_compromised.--GZWDer (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Here's the announcement, just in case you're still looking for one: m:Wikimedia Foundation/March 2025 discovery of account compromises. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll incorporate that in a NaN writeup. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, Ziyad has been released from prison. I have added a small section to N&N (will tidy it up and add the link to previous coverage later, do let me know if his release has been covered in the Signpost already). Osama Khalid is still in jail. --Andreas JN466 16:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 There's excellent news, indeed, so thank you for the update!

Let's keep praying for Osama, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/03/27/strengthening-wikipedias-neutral-point-of-view/

To support the Wikimedia communities and reaffirm our commitment to neutrality, the Wikimedia Foundation will convene a working group of active editors, Trustees, researchers, and advisors to explore recommendations for common standards for NPOV policies that can protect Wikipedia, increase the integrity of the projects, and equip the volunteers trusted to administer these policies with more support.

Whuh?? jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG It's likely a further reform of standard NPOV policies, so nothing too surprising in my opinion... I'm a bit concerned about the vague definition of "researchers and advisors", though. Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri @JPxG Would it be outrageous if I asked you to move the deadline one or two days further? I just wanted to make sure I can actually give you a decent amount of help for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]