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
	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 2026-01-19 21:20:35 ( v t e ) Writing: 28 January 01:00 (9 days left; 69%) Publishing: 29 January 01:00 (10 days left; 71%) There are 8 days, 3 hours, 39 minutes and 25 seconds until deadline. (refresh)

Appointed new WMF CEO. See https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/12/09/welcoming-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-ceo/ I'll see if I can arrange an interview. I doubt a long interview can be done and published before Dec. 21, but should be published before Wikipedia day (January 15, 2026), so I consider the publication day to be extremely important for this. Please let me know when we are going to publish! I also suggest that we publish the Diff piece linked above in the next issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a "paid editing" tag on Talk:Bernadette Meehan in 2017. This is relevant because the person was selected as new CEO by the Wikimedia Foundation today. Due to this odd connection, I feel that I should probably steer clear of editing on this for The Signpost any further than what has already been done -- placeholder statements about the selection at NaN and ItM. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up. The bio was created by an account which was CU confirmed as a sock along with ~40 other accounts. The sockpuppet investigation has more details. As far as I can tell, the "paid editing" accusation only came up at the SPI, never at the conflict of interest noticeboard. One of the investigators said they thought it was a PR company. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: thanks.

Well, I gotta ask that question!

BTW, for ItM https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/wikipedia-operator-taps-former-us-ambassador-chile-ceo-role-2025-12-09/ , might as well add more links here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Reuters story is what I added to News and Notes a few minutes before you posted here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: et al, I'm still v ery interested in the publication schedule related to this story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good powers of recall, Bri.

For history buffs: Sue Gardner admitted making COI edits to the article about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where she worked at the time, before joining Wikimedia. Andreas JN466 12:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For history buffs 2: This is the second woman with a past career stint as a travel coordinator for Hillary Clinton to take on an influential role at the WMF. (The first was m:Whitney Williams.) What are the odds ... --Andreas JN466 16:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules on MOS:JOBTITLES can be ... wierd. Is it United States ambassador to Chile or United States Ambassador to Chile? The former looks wrong to me and seems dismissive to the importance of an ambassador, who personally represents a nation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've finally managed to expand the In focus piece on the Jimbo and Larry controversies we started a few weeks ago. Very belatedly... but still, it's done now.

If @Soni, @Bri, @Smallbones or everybody else wants to take this home, now you should have an easier task in your hands! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pog. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going through it, and I am really not sure about a lot of this.

Starting out, the summary of Wikipedia's origins is not that great. We have three paragraphs here, but I don't know that it gives a better introduction than three paragraphs of Wikipedia. We kind of mention Nupedia and give some quick milestones but don't really explain why this stuff matters. Then we get into a kind of weirdly snitty pigtail-pulling section about Larry.

He's also made multiple comments on the Gaza Genocide article. In the interest of giving his views the weightage they deserve, we are not covering his comments.

Everyone on the planet Earth is aware that Wikipedia editors are predominantly liberals, so we don't need to remind them of it every ten seconds. Larry wrote a bunch of the foundational policies and was quite involved in the early days of the project, which for some reason we do not mention, and instead take potshots at Everipedia etc.

It is, of course, important to mention that Larry has not participated much in the project since 2002, and that Jimbo has had a much larger role in the community in the last twenty years; I think this can be done without so much of a tart flavour.

all of the requests [...] have got rejected

By who? This is the most critical aspect of this. I don't think anybody outside Wikipedia cares about our pomp and circumstance. By the participants in RfCs, I should assume?

We get into the coverage of the whole kerfluffu after that, and then don't really say anything about it. I guess the main thing about this piece, for me, is that I don't really see what the reader is supposed to gain from it. I also don't think we are doing a great job of explaining what's going on to potential readers who don't already understand how Wikipedia works. This is kind of how it's framed, but I don't think it does that (since it skips over a bunch of stuff). Conversely, people who do understand how Wikipedia works are pretty well able to read the articles we're linking as sources, or our other coverage, or the discussions themselves. We're not really advancing a thesis on "what it all means", which I think is something that could justify this. We could do that but we currently are not. As it stands, I think we are basically just kind of parroting RfC closes ("The GALACTIC COUNCIL has decided to REJECT your SODALITY!") and not explaining them, which I do not think I can copyedit into something publishable in the next hour or so.

My inclination, since we are so far past the deadlines, is to publish the issue without this and try to work on it for next issue. jp×g🗯️ 19:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Ugh, again?

No, but seriously, now that you've brought up these concerns, I see why @Soni was dissatisfied with the article as it is, and honestly, I have to take responsibility for that myself: I promised I would help him work on the article, but I'm afraid I didn't have enough experience, nor enough time to get it to a state where it's enjoyable for the average reader... Oltrepier (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically roughly why I was not happy with the article as is. Right now it's a ton of repetition from other places, but not enough summarising or contexts for why things matter. It needs more editor work to be useful to readers, in a "Why is Jimbo important to Wikipedia/how important is he anyway" way. Similarly for "Why is the Gaza genocide article in the current state, how can it change further, and is it a bad thing?".

@JPxG I have opinions on why highlighting Larry's lack of involvement with Wikipedia in the last 20 years is necessary. The "Start of Wikipedia" and "Larry Sanger's comments" were designed to highlight that, show how much the projects have grown since, and how Larry has been on a multi decade crusade against Wikipedia without actively being involved. Too many news media equate Jimmy and Larry by just calling them both generic "co-founders". But the article as written does not showcase that as well as I'd like.

Ultimately, good call on pulling this. Soni (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you know, not only am I actually a co-founder (if I hadn't done what I did, you wouldn't be here now talking about Wikipedia), I introduced the neutrality policy to Wikipedia (from Nupedia, where it was originally formulated). I am also the only founder who has written an extended philosophical defense of neutrality as a policy. It's also worth pointing out that, despite having stopped editing Wikipedia (until very recently), I never stopped regularly commenting on and keeping abreast of developments. That's why it was not hard to write the Nine Theses, which is the world's first thoroughgoing reform proposal for Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, totally by coincidence (written today before anyone told me about your article in development), I have written a longer piece about Gaza genocide. Here it is. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll consider your response when we'll start working on the article again, even though it will probably take some more time... Oltrepier (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Signpost editors, I am really unsure about how to explore the options around. I would appreciate if dcw:Celebrating 25 Years of Wikipedia: Call for Abstracts is given a space in the upcoming issue. I see it is to be published on 5 January, and I am hoping the announcement would do a kind favor. Thank you. Aafi (DCW) (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aafi (DCW): This issue definitely will not be published before your 12 January deadline. I cannot say when this issue will be published. If you update your deadline, then we can get your notice in. Please advise. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry thanks for noticing this. I actually saw around 6 January as the publication date for this issue so I was wondering. We'd be happy to consider some virtual submissions even if submitted by January 16. We will update this to reflect on the event page as well. Aafi (DCW) (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aafi (DCW): I see you updated the deadline to 14 January, which is today, but I am not even able to confirm that we will publish before 16 January.

For readers of the next issue to have time to respond, are you able to extend the deadline weeks longer, perhaps into February 2026? I suppose this would only make sense if you still want additional submissions.

Excuse the uncertainty about publishing dates here. As with so much Wikipedia, this is a volunteer organized project and only proceeds when there is volunteer free time to publish. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, hmm, I understand. The conference itself is scheduled on the 25th January, some 9 days after today. Aafi (DCW) (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/machines-like-us/article-wikipedia-won-our-trust-can-we-use-that-model-everywhere/ (The Globe and Mail)
• https://www.wnyc.org/story/new-years-day-adams-legacy-wikipedias-rules-online-reading/
• https://www.firstpost.com/world/wikipedia-turns-25-a-milestone-in-collaborative-knowledge-ws-e-13964385.html
• https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/books/2026/01/03/wikipedia-founders-treatise-on-trust-lacks-spark may have some promise, is actually critical of the content

I'm kind of out of steam on the coverage of Seven Rules of Wikipedia but I'll list a few here as I come across them. Unless I have a change of heart, or someone else wants to take them on, these will be passed over for the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of prominent media have coverage about the Acting President of Venezuela infobox story that we ought to include in the 20:01 issue. Example: Time, Snopes ("True", of course), USA Today, The Independent. Bri.public (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times - Jon Stewart roast. Bri.public (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see N&N is a redlink, ITM is stubbed but ready to expand, and we don't have a whole lot else. I'm gonna postpone this issue to tomorrow when I can devote some more time to it. jp×g🗯️ 00:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are we planning to publish before January 15, the 25th anniversary of the inception of Wikipedia? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a submitted article by Jonathan that I'll post right now. There are also election results that should fill up N&N. But I'll likely be unavailable all weekend. But, yes, it's obvious that we should publish before January 15. I've never understood why we go thru this song and dance every issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view about VRT by the celebrated Jonatan Svensson Glad (at least I celebrated when he reminded me that he submitted it.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last issue I said that I needed a break, and that lasted until I got the chance to interview the incoming CEO. The 2nd part of the interview will not be completed for this issue, possibly not until February. @Pine: is planning an exit interview with Maryana sometime in the future. I think we should publish them whenever they are ready, even if they are in the same issue. We might want to talk about interviewing styles but my feeling are that most of the time, that's between the interviewer and the interviewee and depends on the situation. I may help with writing up some ItM stuff or copy editing, but I may not be available. It would help, of course, if we had a regular schedule. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We kind of need to publish soon, or we won't have announced the 35th anniversary celebrations until after they happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we're now six days past the previously announced publication deadline (I just updated it with a more realistic guess).

Folks who would like to help move this over this finish line should take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status, but we also need the EiC or his substitute to make some high level editorial decisions about which submitted pieces to include in this issue (I don't think we can or should run every single one of them).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably for me ... I'm going to be out of pocket for publishing though I probably can drop in for a few copyedits here and there. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have an excellent submission from Christopher Henner / schiste ·

I looked at the possible article categories at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom and felt that we could label it as special report, essay, op-ed, opinion, or community view. I decided to call this special report, but consider if another category is better.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Special_report

This report is semi-published in meta:User:Schiste/what-now, so it is in userspace, on Meta-Wiki. That copy will remain there, but I think we can fairly say that this presentation in Signpost would be the original publication. I am asking Christophe right now to look at this and comment on whether he wants to link this page to Meta. I am saying all of this because I currently have this formatted as an original Signpost publication and not a republished piece from elsewhere. Christophe announced this piece on 9 January in Wikimedia-l, so this is fresh.

I did a little editing to the original format of the article but I think this is good to go. I have it open for anyone else to copyedit, but Christopher wrote all this and I read it all, finding nothing more in need of editing. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have an excellent submission from Christopher Henner / schiste - where did he submit it as a Signpost piece? I agree it is a very interesting text (already told him myself right after he posted it on Meta), but we already have a lot of other (intentional) submissions for this issue at

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions and elsewhere. (And as every so often, we have no shortage of folks who want to see their opinions publicized and amplified in the Signpost, but much fewer people willing to work on independent journalistic coverage.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: He did not submit it. I saw it in Wikimedia-l, and I checked to see our coverage on Wikipedia's anniversary. I felt it was a quality piece and that we had room, and I stuck it in. It was not so much work and felt that it was easier to insert than to discuss. If this as an opinion piece is not a fit for this issue then neither I nor Christophe would be disappointed. It does seem to me like the sort of quality original submission and perspective that the Signpost usually publishes though. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think that this is how most people would understand "submission from", but let's move on.

And of course it's freely licensed, so we don't need permission to republish it in the Signpost. That said, I entirely disagree that we can fairly say that this presentation in Signpost [sic] would be the original publication - it was published on Meta first (where it has already attracted thousands of pageviews and lots of discussion). It would be rather misleading to pretend that it's an original Signpost contribution rather than syndicated, so I have added a brief note.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: As you like, it works either way. I feel that many people consider content in their userspace to be unpublished, and it is an established norm in Wikipedia to keep content in userspace for years in personal discussion before moving it elsewhere and considering it published. I do not object to your note but I also do not see anything misleading about moving content which has been in the backwaters of Meta-Wiki on a user page for a few days into Signpost. This content seems like less than a preprint to me, and it is an established norm to treat preprints and the discussion around them no block to original publication of the exact same content when it arrives at a journal.

I am saying all this to push back at any ethical judgement of a preprint process being misleading or second-class. I advocate for anyone to bring content like this into the Signpost journalism system, and I do not want anyone to feel discouraged from seeking userspace comments as a bar to original publication if they want the benefits of that in Signpost.

All together though - thanks for your review and edits. I may be misunderstanding what you want of Signpost editorial practice, but if we should sync more on good standards, then I could talk more with you sometime. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems to have caused a bit of a kerfluffu in the comments, with some very unhappy responses including that the Signpost should be sent to MfD for publishing it, that it's slop, et cetera. I responded to some of the questions people were asking. Probably, it is not a great idea for me to participate further. I remember a while ago Smallbones told me it was a bad idea for the EiC to get into arguments on Signpost comment sections, which I think evidences his smartness and my stupidity.

I can't really figure out what to think about this. The main precipitating point of offense seems to be that the guy who wrote it used Claude to copyedit it. I do not remember anyone responding in this way to the (much lower-quality) GPT-3 assisted articles we ran in summer '22; at that time nobody seemed bothered by it, most people did not really have an opinion one way or the other, and to the extent the presence of a LLM was noted at all it was complimentary. Of course, that was a bit of a stunt (it cost me about ten bucks to run all the queries, and then I had to spend about twice as long to write the thing in tiny sections, then stitch them together then fact-check them). But I don't really get how the situation changed between then and now, other than a bunch of politics stuff.

Is there any useful takeaway from this? The best I can come up with is "don't use an LLM to copyedit anything in your submissions, or use too many em-dashes, or else people will get really mad". jp×g🗯️ 02:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is polite (but not required on freely licensed material) to ask the author if they want it to be published in The Signpost. I'll go ahead and do that later. @Pine: suggested publishing this to me last night - and I agree that it should be. @Blue Rasberry and HaeB: seem to like it also. It does look to be well copy edited - except the sections were misnumbered, perhaps because they are Roman numerals. In any case I've corrected that. The 2 recent submissions look good also. I'll put @Femke:'s in Community WikiProject report and the WMF-will-buy-you-a-book article obviously belongs in Serendipity.

Part 2.

• via e-mail Henner has ok'd submitting the article and also knows about BlueRasberry's efforts
• Somebody needs to write News and notes. I think there are election results to be reported.
• copy editing everywhere!

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: (and/or) should finish up and publish asap or at least tomorrow. If the 7,000+ word long special report causes any publishing problems, we can split it right after Part III and publish the rest in the next issue. It also needs an editor's introduction. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged here: No, I'm not available to carry out publication (and to horribly mangle metaphors, if you're casting a wider net among emeriti EiC's, you would be on the hook too yourself ;)

But, given JPxG's absence, let's invoke the customary EICAWOL protocol here, and enable other Signpost regulars to help move this closer to publication by approving individual sections in loco EiC (preferably ones that one hasn't significantly been involved with oneself). I'll try do one or two myself right now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a very preliminary version up on In the media (at the top of course). President D.J. Trump posted a fake Wikipedia info box which listed himself as Acting President of Venezuela. The story (of the posting, not of a new position) has been confirmed by TIME, MSN, USA Today and many others, and I've seen the Truth Social post myself and am quoting The Independent (UK) and archived that one. I've got a screen shot, and I've tried to reproduce the fake Wiki infobox, but can't quite get it right. I'm worried about copyright status. I suppose we could post the actual real infobox instead and be truly original. Any suggestions? or comments? @JPxG, Bri, HaeB, BlueRasberry, and Oltrepier: BTW I just figured out the new headline "Fake Acting President Trump" and blurb "D.J. assumes a new position." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to upload the infobox image as published on Truth social directly to Commons. Should be ok as per c:Template:PD-USGov-POTUS or c:Template:PD-simple for anything they "added" or created. which differ from c:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'll just note that User:Josve05a/Jonatan Svensson Glad is a Commons admin, so that should settle it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we're ShareAlike 4.0 International License, isn't his derivative work the same?

Also, does this mean he's now a Venezuelan immigrant and ICE will get him? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, works created by US government officials in their official capacity are PD, so there is no copyright for Trump to assert in any "derivative work" here. The underlying infobox layout was CC BY-SA 4.0, but it is almost certainly below the threshold of originality anyway to even be that. However, to be cautious, I've retagged the file as CC BY-SA 4.0 on Commons, so the article byline may want to reflect that. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any record of what sandbox or what account did the edits? Maybe an edit filter tripped?? This is newsworthy ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I can't find any edit like that in the page's history: it might just have been a photoshopped pic, to be honest... Oltrepier (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too. I'm glad you're covering it. Guz13 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All good for me, @Smallbones! By the way, sorry for failing to show up for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones This is the most media intense Trump + Wikipedia thing I can remember since the penis-incident circa Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2018#November. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's what is normally done by actual journalists. Contact me through the form on larrysanger.org. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Newsroom: Are we writing another article about L.S.? Bri.public (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's just an In the Media. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. The last time the authors @Soni and Oltrepier: touched it was Dec. 17. In general leaving articles sitting around is not a good idea. Old news is usually not publishable, just because it's old. That said this is more like analysis of things Jimbo and LS have written and it mostly stands up. It ends rather suddenly, but it's not bad. I'd probably publish it in this issue, but not the next. And since it is just analysis of things the two have said and done, it does not really require input from them.
• @Larry Sanger: Any time you want to give some input to The Signpost, you've got my email. Or if you've lost my email, just use the Wikipedia email function. If you want to write an article for the Signpost, just submit it and if it meets our standards we'll publish it. But it works both ways, if you blow us off when we ask for a comment, we'll be less likely to ask you for anything. We're not obliged to treat you any differently than anybody else. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know who you are, and if I have your email, I'm not aware of it. I get a lot of mail that I have no time to respond to. Suffice to say that I won't blow off a request for comment from the Signpost, if I have done so in the past. If you want to do journalism criticizing a person, it's up to the journalists (so, not you, right? You're not writing the piece, are you?) to seek a response from the target. I didn't say you were obliged to treat me any differently than anybody else, and I'll thank you not to assume I was asking for special treatment. Indeed, I was asking for the ordinary treatment ordinarily given to people in the news. But if you're telling me that's not ordinary treatment as far as the Signpost goes, let's just leave it at that. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  face palm. I forgot that was still unpublished. I worked on it in early November! ☆ Bri (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I personally lost steam to work on that section, because it needed significantly more work to be spruced up than I expected. I think it either needs to be discarded as a draft, or taken up by someone experienced, because navigating the analysis and tone of the article is something I was also struggling to do Soni (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for folks reading along, there is already a talk page section above about this draft (not sure why Larry felt compelled to open a new one with a vaguepost).

I was under the impression that JPxG (our temporarily absent editor-in-chief) had already pretty much spiked it last month, at least in its current form, due to various concerns. (Among other things, JPxG had already pointed to the problem that Larry now - with some justification - complains about above: Larry wrote a bunch of the foundational policies and was quite involved in the early days of the project, which for some reason we do not mention.) But then Adam Cuerden appeared to try prepare it for publication in the upcoming issue nevertheless. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, HaeB, and JPxG: OK, let's spike it and keep it spiked. It looks like that would satisfy everybody involved. Now, do we have a plan to publish this issue? Just publish what we have. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Sanger: You have probably already seen that the article had gotten declined a month ago (mostly because I thought it wasn't good enough, for reasons rather similar to what you say here). I would indeed enjoy interviewing you for a different piece, but the main barrier is I do not have a lot of free time. My salary as a Wikipedia administrator and editor-in-chief of the Signpost is the negative ten dollars per month it costs to host https://signpost.news, so it tends to take a back seat to other employment, which is currently accounting for about eighty hours a week. Indeed, elsewhere on this page you can even see all the other Signpost editors cussing me out for my butt being nowhere to be found the last couple days — zoinks! — but I have faith things will become more normal soon. jp×g🗯️ 15:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not, we're going to miss the 25th anniversary. So, if someone can copyedit my Op-ed, I'll do what else I can Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've copyedited literally everything else needing it (that was marked as ready to go). Sixteen hours before a whole lot of content needs deleted, because we're not telling people about events they can go to anymore. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody takes care of N&N, I can help you double-check the other remaining articles! Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this huge publication delay is frustrating, as is more generally our inability in recent years to stick with scheduled publication deadlines.

That said, let's not catastrophize about the anniversary - it's not exactly a breaking news event whose sudden occurrence we need to reveal to our readers ASAP, and we already ran a PSA about the upcoming celebrations in the last issue (whose N&N was literally titled "We're gonna have a party!"). Aside from the one-sentence repetition of this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes whose tense needs to be changed soon, what else does a whole lot of content needs deleted refer to?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to do so can follow the manual publishing procedure. I just can't run the pub script due to other commitments. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden: I copyedited your Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. You already have a review from SnowFire, and I encourage to you reflect more on their comments, as I agree with them. Transgender rights is a prime political issue which makes people angry and crazy. I get that the FAR process has failings, but for the article you discuss, I think that your opinion piece is neglecting 0.5-1.5 sentences which recognize the context that billions of dollars are being spent in multiple countries to seat politicians who have transgender rights as a top issue in why people vote for them. The FAR process is not typically at the center of multibillion dollar propaganda campaigns, and I think it is an omission that your opinion piece does not differentiate a supremely hatemongering off-wiki controversy and a more routine evaluation process, for example, lettuce Bluerasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, thank you for flagging this.

  I would even go a bit further and say that adding these 0.5-1.5 sentences won't fix other serious issues with this op-ed. It essentially insinuates that multiple unnamed but readily identifiable editors have been engaging in supporting transphobia (by downplaying of Rowling's anti-trans views) , whereas it looks like at least some of them rather saw themselves as engaging in good-faith efforts to uphold general Wikipedia norms about sourcing standards, the FA process etc. And while I haven't looked into all the specific examples provided in the op-ed, I clicked on this RSN link in the An example of the editing environment around Rowling section (a debate about a particular article from the Journal of Philosophy of Education), and it seems to me that the author's opponents had at least some fairly good arguments there.

  Then there is the tedious WP:HIGHMAINT opener (I wouldn't have another featured picture until November, and nearly gave up on Wikipedia by July).

  The title promises an informed critique of FA reviews in general (The frustrations of featured article reviews), which could be a very interesting topic (I'm not saying that the FA process is beyond criticism). But then it turns out to be about a particular aspect of a particular FA only, where the author disagrees with multiple other editors.

  I'm not against the Signpost running potentially controversial pieces that rub many editors the wrong way, assuming they meet our quality standards (and I have spent significant amounts of time in the past to defend such contributions by others when I thought they met these standards). But I think we should generally discourage op-ed submissions of the type "Recently I was involved in an on-wiki debate that I found frustrating, here are 3400 words on why I was right and good and the editors who disagreed with me were wrong and toxic".

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Igordebraga: are you done with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Traffic report? Can I finalize a copyedit? I already reviewed a bit. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead with the copyedit. Don't think I'll add this week's list. igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed it too. It looks good to go to me but I didn't mark it complete. Bri.public (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bri.public @Adam Cuerden @HaeB I'm late as usual, but I've still managed to knock out the copy-editing on those three remaining columns: N&N, WikiProject Report and Recent research.

  On a side note, I've realized that we forgot to write about Public Domain Day, as we usually do on N&N, but nevermind, I guess: the 25th birthday is undoubtedly the show-stealer, and we can always address every material that has become of public domain on the next issue... together with some not so feel-good news from Italy about PD itself. Oltrepier (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point re Public Domain Day. Obviously it shouldn't hold up the publication process at this point, but if you have time to add something to N&N while we're still waiting for someone to handle that process, I think it would be great to do it now already (also considering that N&N is still very short). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @HaeB I haven't, unfortunately... it's already way over "standard bed time" where I live. : D

  But no worries, really: we don't need to rush it when we can just provide a wider and better overview on the next issue. Let the birthday party roll on first! Oltrepier (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. Great. I had this ready on 1 January, and you all pile on on publication day - which you're clearly going to miss, even though I did the work for every other article. Learn to review in a timely manner. I put hours and hours of work into it. And none of you could be bother to look at it until you decided to pull it at the last second. Seriously, fuck you all. I was the only person to have the article ready in time for the scheduled date of publication, and you couldn't even manage the delayed date or the last fucking possible date, nor could you look at the one article that was ready. This publication is such a farce. Make your objections on time, or shut the fuck up next time. "Ready for copyedit" shouldn't mean "This will be ignored until the last possible second".

  Let's say I do revise it? When will it get published, given the schedule of the Signpost? Next month? Next year? The heat death of the universe?

  I am furious at this. You had every single chance to not drop this at the last minute. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And you can't even be bothered to justify it by getting it out before the clock ticked over to the 15th. Nicely done. Why don't we just hold off on publication until Op-ed is acceptable to you? After all, you show no urgency in any other way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 00:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, my comments were on January 8. I get that the above echoing might seem last minute, but there was advance warning that there was possible contention here. For what it's worth, I believe that the above feedback is offered in good faith and in the hope of a better, stronger op-ed. SnowFire (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I trust Signpost editors to know when something is not a good op-ed, and looking at this myself, it is hard to find any fault with what HaeB says above. This is not a good opinion piece; it's a very long complaint about an on-wiki dispute that goes to great lengths to paint the opposition as unreasonable. To the extent it's interesting, it's because of how brazenly chauvinistic it is in favor of your own position in the dipute, and to the extent it's got any chance of avoiding controversy, it's because of how niche a subject it's about and how little it works to make itself relevant to the broader community. Essentially, it reads more like an AN/I complaint than an opinion piece. If we are to the point of getting angry about it, then I'll take my turn, and ask why you have expected the Signpost to serve as a megaphone for something which is so obviously an individual dispute. The saying in the old country, along these lines, was "not your personal army". You knew that's what this was when you submitted it...

  I have gone on about this at some length, but I knew my ass would never have time to be the sole editor-in-chief, and indeed I only signed on this due to there being a second person to handle the role at the time. This is no longer the case, probably because most people in this role spend the majority of their tenure trying to escape from it, I am endlessly grateful to the other editors, particularly Bri who has been pressing out a shitload of issues whenever I've been indisposed (and by any reasonable metric would qualify to be a co-EiC). I also appreciate HaeB who will always be saying shit that reflects very poorly on me but is true (e.g. that I am lazy). I am no longer lazy and shiftless, as I just billed my first hundred-hour workweek, but lazy nonetheless. My apologies and condolences.

  I have published this issue, minus the two ceremoniously spiked articles, and minus any journalistic (or even significant editorial) contribution of my own, which I would have had to trade against billable hours at my job to write — soon I expect my financial situation (and perhaps even that of the company) to improve to the point where I will start taking weekends off as a regular practice, but until then, I would very much like to have some help (as I have been so graciously given). jp×g🗯️ 15:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Posts to Wikimedia-l and Announce are done. Apologies for being otherwise completely useless this issue. Andreas JN466 18:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I recall, Christophe Henner is called Christophe, without an r at the end. See his French user page and various press articles. Did he mean to be a Christopher for this? Andreas JN466 22:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to be the culprit: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Schiste/what-now&diff=next&oldid=29907271 I'll go change the byline. Andreas JN466 22:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Lots of sympathy, JPxG. Back when I was around here, I was working three jobs and then started grad school. Don't burn yourself out like I did. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion is concerning an unpublished item at Special:Permalink/1332918936 – B

I'm sorry, but I can't handle this level of "no help available - but let's all complain right before publication", followed by joking about it. "Ceremoniously spiked"?! Is there anything that would make this editorial that I spent a week on publishable? Or will any useful feedback on it not come until three hours before publication of the next issue? Because vague complaints about how it presents me arguing that the article isn't good enough for featured article status as correct is a problem when that's how the Featured Article Removal Candidacy closed, so that's the official Wikipedia judgement on it really isn't helpful. Do you actually have a problem with a single fact I bring up? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left clear actionable feedback on the talk page. I am happy to give you more feedback, if I have the bandwidth. That last clause is important because all of us have lives and do not do this full time. In fact, my own section got spiked the same way because we (mostly me) did not have bandwidth to spruce it up.

We can keep discussing specifics about your Op-Ed on the talk page. I think it could be useful, but it definitely needs significant work. Soni (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to take this to the talk page of the article itself, but the feedback you received was not vague, and the feedback is useful. The problem is that the title + thesis paragraph isn't sustained. You say that it's a "bizarre procedure for shepherding an article through a featured article review" but then the entire op-ed is entirely about J.K. Rowling specifically, with no attempt at analysis of the FA / FAR process at all, how it currently works, how it could be different, why it's "bizarre", etc. Which you openly admit to. That's points for honesty, but this completely upends the criticism you've made and the "promise" in the title / opener. This isn't a minor problem. If you want to write about J.K. Rowling and Wikipedia, fine, but say that then. (And ideally take on the tone issues raised by others seriously too, as well.)SnowFire (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to how seriously people can respond to something as outrageous as this. If you're serious when you say crap like "this publication is a farce", then why would you even care if we ran it or not? If you're not serious, then why even say it at all? Abuse for the sheer sake of abuse? jp×g🗯️ 14:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]