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 2026-04-19 12:56:52 ( v t e ) Writing: 19 April 01:00 (-0 days left; 0%) Publishing: 20 April 01:00 (1 day left; 5%) ‹See TfM›Deadline has started. (refresh)

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2026-04-19 12:56:53.
March 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 23 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	April 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03	May 2026 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 27 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

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]

The gallery is ready for copyediting. ↠Pine (✉) 18:20, 28 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]

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]

@Bluerasberry, Bri, and JPxG: At the top of Itm I found Bluerasberry's story very confusing and offpoint. Wikipedia was only mentioned once in the 2 sources, but in the writeup it was the very center of the story. In short I changed it - please do whatever you think is best with it.

I'll be back in a couple of hours, but don't think I'll be able to help much tonight. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Y@Smallbones: Your edits are entirely an improvement. Right - "in the news" is not the conventional place to put a piece like this, and I inserted my own views or wiki advocacy beyond what the sources state. The original articles are about Internet Archive. I do not think it is overstretching to have our own reporting focus on Wikipedia, but Smallbones, your rewriting is much more aligned with the normal way of doing things than my text was. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• https://dallasexpress.com/national/cesar-chavez-wikipedia-entry-dna-test-facts-vs-page-claims/

The news story above is from an online newspaper called "Dallas Express". It is not Dallas Express out of print for some 50 years. There's some discussion at User talk:Kuru#Possible fake source about it but I'm not sure whether it meets the bar for The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiConference report

If anyone has feedback on my submission then either edit it directly or share here. The attraction here is the videos but I also wrote text to present the wikiconfernece experience. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Bluerasberry. Thanks for taking this on. The writing seems very clean and readable. There's a lot of text content, and I was actually a bit surprised when I scrolled past the videos and found it. Do you think presenting it a little differently might help prepare the reader for what's there? It almost feels like there's enough for more than one issue, but I'd understand if you want to keep it all together. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Thanks for the review. I just split it, and now looking at it, there is a lot of content.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view <-- videos, and the other link is the text

I am indifferent about having both of these in the next issue, versus publishing videos in this issue and the text article in the next. You suggested publishing across issues - would you please make the call of all now versus now some, later more? It is priority to get videos out now though.

Thanks Bluerasberry (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, I think the Community view was a good choice of venue for the videos. It is probably the case that separating your personal statements from the reflections of the other participants is probably preferable, as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded my submission to the Disinfo report and marked in Ready for copy editing. It's a bit long at about 2,500 words. If you have feedback on it, please e-mail me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs)

Noted that the paid-editing series sidebar was a bit out of date, so I manually updated the tags for a few of the sincewise written articles at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Author/Smallbones with paidediting. This should fill it out a little. If this is not what's desired, feel free to untag them, or whatever -- it's just the tags haven't been maintained in quite some time so they were falling behind. jp×g🗯️ 05:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and Bluerasberry: I will host the 11 April Wikimedia Café, focusing on the the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan. The featured guests will be Kelsi Stine-Rowe (senior manager, Movement Communications, Wikimedia Foundation), and Sam Walton (senior product manager, Moderator Tools, Wikimedia Foundation). Additional meetings regarding the Annual Plan are listed on the the Collaboration page for the Annual Plan. Would one of you be willing to add a short announcement with this information in the Notes section of N&N? You can modify or format the info as you think best, and we can discuss if needed. ↠Pine (✉) 06:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: I'm happy to add this good addition to upcoming events. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Sorry for the last-ditch report, but since now we know that Wikinews will shut down permanently from May 1, I can add a brief blurb to the column, if you'd like to... or else, we can save it for the next issue and provide some more in-depth coverage. Let me know which option you like the most! Oltrepier (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do both! Can you put a brief mention in the current issue? Also can you quick look at newsroom archive 45 to see if the discussion links provided there are still useful to include? Bri.public (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri.public Yes, I can work on that! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri It's up now! Sorry for the wait and for the very limited help I've provided for this issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2026 (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 sixteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of me being available tomorrow for anything other than brief interstices is quite low. If anybody wants to publish tomorrow, I am happy with that, otherwise I will be available only on Monday. @Bri: jp×g🗯️ 09:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in and out today but can check on status in the evening. Does Monday (U.S.) publication work better for you, JPxG? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will be back to my normal zone then. jp×g🗯️ 19:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the publication deadline had actually already been set (perhaps by mistake?) to Monday, i.e. now.

Btw, I'm running late with RR, so feel free to publish without it, but I should have it publishable in a few hours otherwise. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. jp×g🗯️ 05:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion" seemed a little sniffly so I went to one of those goddamned stupid sniffer websites and it said every sentence had GPTsmell except for, like, two. In the history I saw that those two were edited by Smallbones.

Wikipedians sure do be loving to accuse stuff of being slop, and yell at me for giant paragraphs upon paragraphs for being an evil piece of shit who hates America if we run anything that has slop in it, so if this is the case I don't want to run this. jp×g🗯️ 09:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also, again, not running the Op-Ed because it is LLM stuff. I was very sternly convinced of this the last issue, and I guess the same article is just back. I really do not want to run this. Does anybody remember what happened the last time we ran some thing where a random person slopped their op-ed? Yeah, I know, it's their opinion so it doesn't make sense to say it isn't verifiable. Well, here is what happened: nobody gave a fuck. They just complained about it, at great length, and went to great extremes in declaring that the Signpost was cooked and chopped and washed and failing and dying, and everyone associated with it was a loser, and blah blah blah.

Mostly what I do on Wikipedia is log in every couple weeks and get screamed at for shit. I do not want to get screamed at for this. I do not give enough of a fuck anymore to get screamed at for this. I do not want to run a LLM op-ed for the sake of letting someone defend themselves when the main thing they're accused of is using LLMs in a way that pissed everybody off. Like, is this not the most obvious pulling-a-pin-out-of-a-grenade-and-shoving-it-down-your-pants thing ever?

I don't want to be anywhere near that crap when it goes off. I didn't want to be near the last one either, but there was just too much shit going on for me to close-read every submission (that had no actual thing wrong with it) and larp a noir detective by running it through a slopsniffer to joust at windmills. But this time I don't give a fuck anymore so I am just going to run every op-ed through a sniffer and if it ticks up too high then tough luck.

If someone cannot be arsed to just sit down and write a whole submission on their own, then I definitely cannot be arsed to agree as editor-in-chief to be subjected to a dozen and a half people trying to get the Signpost MfD'd over it and calling it a garbage rag sorry sack of slop shit that isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on for the money nobody pays. There is not time enough in the world to be the designated contact for this great wailing and gnashing of teeth over publishing a thing that could just as easily have been sat down and written by a person. I am not going to publish it. Please do not move it back to /Next issue/ because unless it is completely rewritten I am going to keep spiking it over and over until the sun burns out. jp×g🗯️ 09:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issue out. jp×g🗯️ 10:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I support your decision to decide what goes through your approval. Maybe we should start formalizing that. As in, a checklist of what op-eds are acceptable and what are not. For anybody who didn't look at the draft, it was clearly disclosed by the author as drafted with assistance from an LLM. But even so, I think the E-in-C has the final say on what they personally approve. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Thanks for the clear feedback. I appreciate the hierarchy of having an editor-in-chief make decisions, and I also appreciate the explanation, even though I personally am already ready to take no for an answer without explanation for any submission. Like Bri, I support formalization of giving the last word to the EiC, even without explanation or discussion, because I know the circumstances without being told, I know that I am pushing boundaries with this submission, and I know how short on time all of us are. I think we have a good collaborative system here that works well.

Other thing to formalize - no AI submissions in The Signpost, so if that is the rule, then I like that. If we were to make an exception, then I could support publishing non-English submissions with AI-translation, whenever someone who communicates best in another language has something to say to English Wikipedia readers of The Signpost.

Thanks JPxG for editorial commitment and please let me know what I can do to keep this fun for you. I hope that you can think of this decision you just made as entirely enjoyable, productive, and having a useful impact on quality of journalism. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list posts for this issue done. Andreas JN466 19:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, even if the tone was rougher than I would have hoped for a submission that represented genuine effort and full transparency about its process.

I won't be resubmitting. I'm not willing to do a full human-only rewrite for the same reason I wouldn't write on a typewriter — LLMs are part of how I work, as they increasingly are for many contributors. If Wikipedia and its publications move toward rejecting that entirely, I think they will lose contributors, and I include myself in that.

I do want to support @Bluerasberry's and Bri's suggestion to formalize this as policy. Contributors deserve to know the rules upfront rather than spending time on submissions that will be spiked. A clear policy is better for everyone, including editors who don't want to be put in JPxG's position of having to make these calls ad hoc under pressure.

I wish the Signpost well 7804j (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the calendar, we could do April 13 and 27. Otherwise, just one April issue. Thoughts?

As for myself, I'd rather steer clear of April 20 as a publishing date (or that weekend) as I'm signed up for the WP:420 collaboration (as is Bluerasberry). So if we just do one April issue, April 27 is preferable. Bri.public (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the past two issues I cleared out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. We do not have drafted pending content to fill out an issue right now.

Unless someone is aware of submissions ready to go, I think planning for 4 weeks is more reasonable than in 2. I vote 27 April. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I set it to April 13 for now because it's easier to push it out than to pull it in. - Bri.public (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are on the threshold of the announced publication time. Is it going to be this weekend, or later? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri.public and Bri: I assembled a gallery. It can run on any day this month. ↠Pine (✉) 07:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is kind of tight but I can get at it tomorrow if we think we actually have enough stuff to run with. jp×g🗯️ 04:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections are ready to go now. Exceptions include News and notes, and In the media, which are "content complete" but not yet copyedited. NaN looks like it's in good shape and just needs a signoff; In the media is a little rough around the edges. Bri.public (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I'll try to do some more work myself at ITM, but I won't be able to do much... Oltrepier (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the morning I will roll it. jp×g🗯️ 03:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ITM looks a lot better now, thanks to several people. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is ready, modulo two pro forma checkoffs on copyediting sections which I'm too involved in writing to do myself. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as stated in the discussion below, I boldly punted the "From the editors" piece for further review and discussion. By the way, given how this issue's publication has continued to creep past the deadline, I suggest keeping expectations modest for the number of issues published per month. ↠Pine (✉) 23:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes

I posted news from today about Serbian Wikipedia editors banned

This is a development in a complicated multi-year story. These banned editors are highly active, with at least one each highly active in English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons. I linked previous Signpost coverage here and have this framed to include a general explanation of what bans are and what they mean.

We have time to develop this but I started it now. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Believe it or not, I've managed to work on and complete the article myself, hopefully I didn't turn it into an absolute trainwreck... Feel free to make further edits! Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I have a document of private notes about this case. It is not intended to be sensitive - it is just a collection of public links including to popular discussions on Serbian Wikipedia and some notes - but also I am not confident enough to share it here because something might become sensitive if I posted it all without care and it got misinterpreted. Do you want them?

For anyone else reading, if anyone wants to get access to these notes then identify yourself to me intent to edit or review this article. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Sorry for replying just now...

I don't think I would have enough time to properly check them out and add more details to the article, but if you do think they might provide some more insight, then go for it! I mean, you were the one who reported the news in the first place... : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: I added more text and links. Review if you can. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: you said ppl requested anonymity for safety. Was privacy also a concern? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I meant privacy with the intent to create safety. I have notes that I can share with another Signpost editor or trusted Wikipedian. I am trying to balance my own not knowing anything about Serbia or its wiki community, versus trying to include some useful amount of local community perspective on what is happening. I also want to balance respect for the Wikimedia Foundation's decision - which so far as I know is welcomed and accepted - against the Wikimedia community's wish to learn enough about what happened to be able to govern itself, detect if other such problems exist, and to understand effective moderation.

If you see a way to better report this tone then freely change. I was not careful or precise in my wording, and it is all up for rephrasing. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Done! I've tried to simplify some passages, and left a little note about the "concerned community" term you left towards the start of the article, since its meaning wasn't so clear to me. Oltrepier (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry On the occasion of the global banning of six editors Марко Станојевић and SimplyFreddie is arbitrarily requested that the interface administrator and system operator rights be revoked, which was done. This wiki currently has 10 admins. ~2026-23876-90 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:VPP - proposal to redo enwp as Esperanto
• WP:RFA - two joke RfAs, including a second mop to an established administrator

I don't know if we ought to cover April Fools' Day pranks but I noted the ones above. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh I didn't kow these were cataloged. Found Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2026. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I've moved Bri's original blurb on the partial bans on AI-generated content from ITM to N&N, since we should do a better service to the readers by hosting it there. I'm afraid I won't have enough time to work on that myself, though, since I've already spent the whole day completing the blurb on the sr.wiki bans and re-shuffling the rest of the articles on In the media...

Still, I hope all of that helps! Oltrepier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Bri just for a heads-up. Oltrepier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My blurb on the AI ban is finally done. I can't help you further, though... Oltrepier (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Politico's Eulogy for CIA Factbook does not mention Wikipedia, but it feels very encyclopedia-adjacent. Maybe it can be worked in somewhere? The closure of this and threatened blocking of sites to Internet Archive so close together seem to augur … something. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Opinion and Op-Ed slots are already taken, I guess we could save it for the next issue... Oltrepier (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bri: perhaps the former piece could be mentioned in "In the media" or as a note in "News and notes" this time, and a more thorough piece could be published in the next issue. Another option could be to use another section like "In focus" or "Essay", if you and the EIC can agree, perhaps with a thorough analysis of how the Factbook is cited in Wikipedia, discussed on talk pages, etc., and opinions on what could or should be used instead on Wikipedia going forward for sourcing similar information. ↠Pine (✉) 03:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put a brief mention as a note in News and notes. Was there a discussion on-wiki? I could not find any. Oh, Politico was running the syndicated AP story so I credited it as AP and linked directly to apnews.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I usually report milestones in active administrators in News and notes. Could someone please double-check this before I include it?

Our last milestone (low) was 418 active administrators on 2024-10-07, reported in 2024-10-19 News and notes. We dropped below the former low point on April 10, and now are looking at 414 for a few days straight.

curprev 16:14, 13 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,749 bytes +7  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank
12 April 2026
curprev 16:14, 12 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,742 bytes +1  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank
11 April 2026
curprev 16:13, 11 April 2026 Rick Bot talk contribs m  9,741 bytes −58  Daily update, 414 active admins undothank

Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yes, we are at 414, and this is the lowest it has ever been since we started tracking the admin count in 2014. Your interpretation of the bot count is correct and besides that this interpretation matches the analysis on this that Signpost last published. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now has dropped to 412. I shall write up in News and notes later this day. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri WP:AELECT4 is coming up. I have written into the Brief notes section. Feel free to merge into the drop in active admins story! – robertsky (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good the way it is, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editors

We had an AI submission and declined to run it. The person whose piece was declined requested that we clarify Signpost policy to decline AI, and I think that is a good idea.

I have this piece framed as "from the editors". I invite anyone to co-sign on this, and also anyone to edit any or all of this text, including deleting or changing it.

In addition to announcing no AI, I also framed this as a general appeal and invitation for more user participation. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Apart from a few minor duds here and there, I think this is a very good piece. Thank you for crafting it! Oltrepier (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have this piece framed as "from the editors". - I seem to recall earlier discussions here about how this title can be problematic, or how Bluerasberry has at times tended to represent himself as speaking for "The Signpost" when that wasn't warranted. I am not quite certain who "the editors" of the Signpost are, but if I am among them, I need to say that I don't agree with this text in its current form. I invite anyone to co-sign on this - more than a week later, nobody has done so. I certainly won't.

I just got around to reading this piece and the discussion above that had triggered it. I do generally agree that we need to reject submissions more aggressively at times, in particular if there are concerns about their quality or in case the amount of pushback they are likely to generate is in no relation to their journalistic value (I have in fact been thinking about starting a discussion about the former, focusing on some other recent examples). But I disagree with this new policy as formulated by Bluerasberry here, and I also think it goes well beyond JPxG's (entirely understandable) remark above I do not want to run a LLM op-ed for the sake of letting someone defend themselves when the main thing they're accused of is using LLMs in a way that pissed everybody off. Bluerasberry could have posted his policy draft here or at WT:POST for discussion among the team, but decided not to. So I don't feel obliged to edit any or all of [his] text that he already lined up for publication, or to embark on a comprehensive review of possible unintended consequences of his policy wording. But just as a small example to demonstrate that I'm not making up concerns or trying to be difficult: While I have so far written all the text in my Signpost contributions by hand, I did, for example, use ChatGPT to create the table at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-02/Recent_research (by compiling information about the WMF grants program there that are published in many different pages; and yes, I checked every table entry by hand but it still saved a lot of time). I think this was a valuable service for our readers, but under Bluerasberry's policy, this would be prohibited.

Again, I sympathize greatly with not wanting to run LLM-generated op-eds specifically, but also because I generally think that the Signpost has had too many low-quality opinion articles in recent years. (Happy to provide examples, but that's another discussion; let me mention though in that context that I'm also not convinced of the value of Bluerasberry's frequent exhortations to our readers to submit more opinion pieces - e.g. also in this draft, or in the last issue in a very oddly framed story draft involving AI that both Smallbones and I felt compelled to correct before publication. I do appreciate of course that Bluerasberry is doing lots of valuable work for the Signpost, also in managing submissions; for example he did us all a great service earlier this year by being the first team member to call out issues in a very problematic - and ultimately spiked - submission).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bluerasberry:, while I appreciate the good intentions here, I believe that policy announcements should come from the editor-in-chief, and also that a piece framed as "From the editors" requires consensus, so I too disagree with publishing this as written. However, I'm fine with having a discussion about publishing this in a later issue after JPxG and others have a chance to form a consensus. For the purpose of avoiding having this piece go into publication without further discussion, I will boldly move it out of the queue for this issue. I could see a modified version of this piece being published in a later issue, whether as "From the editors", as op-ed, or in a "From the editor" statement from the EIC. Thank you for the time you put into this, and perhaps a version of this can be run in a later issue. ↠Pine (✉) 23:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I moved the content of the draft to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/From the editors draft moved 2026-04-18. The original page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editors is now blank. I deleted the redirect to prevent accidental publication of the moved content. Hopefully this doesn't cause technical issues with how the newsroom is set up for publication. You may wish to delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editors before publication in case the publication script would publish an empty page. Based on the discussion above, I hope that you understand why I did this, although you can override my action in your editor-in-chief capacity. Apologies for any extra work for you. ↠Pine (✉) 23:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, yesterday I made some changes and re-shuffled the blurbs at ITM, picking two or three that could serve as good lead stories (especially the Massachusetts ban), while also moving another story to the N&N column, as noted above.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have enough time to knock all of them out, since I need to focus on other tasks, but we should be able to bring the column to a decent shape... although we're already past the deadline. Oltrepier (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Bri, @Smallbones, @JPxG, @Bluerasberry just for the heads-up. Oltrepier (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this topic in a sheer plea for somebody to address the issue that the current issue is two days late to the publishing deadline. I am requesting, (more accurately begging) for someone to start a discussion on how we can address this. Thank you. ~2026-11404-95 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anon: did you see #Should there be two April issues? - Bri.public (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this publication is not great with meeting schedule, but given that it's run by volunteers, there are limits to what can be expected. If the EIC wants to be more forceful about meeting the schedule, the EIC has some ability to nag people and/or punt pieces that have missed a deadline such as for writing or copyediting. I agree that this is an ongoing pain point, but there aren't a lot of levers available to pull. I have a possible option for how to improve this but it requires probably months of quiet effort that, again, largely falls on volunteers. ↠Pine (✉) 23:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit done but I have a question for JPxG about the wisdom of the phrase "a drug-related bender at a Nevada brothel" in our publication. Even though it seems to likely be based in fact, it's a bit provocative for BLP. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]