• It should also be noted that Gog the Mild is the first Military history WikiProject editor to earn both the Newcomer and Military Historian of the Year awards in the same year. For this honor he joins our current Lead Coordinator Peacemaker67 as one of only two editors to have earned both of these awards. For this acomplishment Gog the Mild and Peacemaker67 have received the Big Red One Badge and the title Primus Inter Pares. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "where the population is starving and forced to eat garbage"—which implies everyone in the country is. Could the proposition be verified, please, especially the claim that everyone is forced to eat garbage? Tony (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposition should be removed. It's not at all NPOV, and frankly very insulting, to describe the two main features of a country to be its "largest oil reserves in the world" and allegedly garbage-consuming population. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, you are forgetting that The Signpost columns are not Wikipedia articles. That said, please have the courtesy to find out what you are talking about before insulting the magazine. Either that consider responding to the appeals for contributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made no insult towards The Signpost, unlike you towards the people of Venezuela. I'm well aware it's not a Wikipedia article, but it should have some editorial standards. I'm also well aware of what's happening in Venezuela but describing its population as "forced to eat garbage" is ridiculous. Yes, some Venezuelans have been forced into that awful position but there are also plenty of Americans who dumpster dive because they have no other access to food. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is defended as the POV, by making such a generalization about an entire country, the POV comes off as defamatory (which is prohibited on Wikipedia); "Defamation, calumny, vilification, or traducement is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of, depending on the law of the country, an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation". Likewise, The Signpost has its own content guideline that states, "Contributors should endeavor to avoid putting out material they know to be wrong or misleading." It might be worthwhile to have a Village Pump discussion, for clarification, about whether The Signpost may publish POV editorials on Wikipedia that violate these policies and guidelines; or if they are required to adhere to these guidelines and policies; or if they are required to follow their own guidelines and policies and should the community be involved in the setting these guidelines and enforcement? Mkdw ^talk 20:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why NPOV keeps getting thrown around in the reader comments. The Signpost makes no statement about neutrality. Bri.public (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's what you think, you should get out of involvement with the Signpost. The standards on display here are appalling. Tony (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think, Tony1, you should either come back and write The Signpost yourself to your own rules, or be less rude in the comments section. If you are one of the editors who insist that Wikipedia standards apply here, then have the courtesy to apply them here too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of response we're becoming used to from those who've colonised what was once a respectable, trustable news outlet. See my comment at the Village Pump. Tony (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)ß[reply]

As a news publication, The Signpost should strive for neutrality but it is by no means bound be NPV, which is an article space policy. Opinionated articles that aren't listed as such are one thing though; inaccuracies such as this are another, and the latter should be avoided as much as possible. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "As documented on YouTube" has to be the most unintentionally hilarious sentence to ever appear in the Signpost. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Bit surprised to see I've been quoted here without any notice, and implied to have some sort of insider WMF knowledge without being asked about it. I have no idea of the circumstances regarding James' departure, but it baffles me that so many people see this departure and jump right over the most plausible explanations–that he was ready for a change after eight years at a company (practically a lifetime in the software world), or that he decided to take what appears to be an impressive (and probably better-paying) job opportunity–and assume that he was ousted or that there was something seedy happening behind the scenes. Slow news cycle, perhaps? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why, GorillaWarfare, should you expect to be notified about being quoted on something you said quite publicly? You yourself clearly inferred that you were privy to inside information. If you are now denying that, you are just as guilty of fuelling the rumours as anyone else on that forum that you contribute to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. It's called "common courtesy" and "journalism". You shouldn't have quoted her without letting her know, because it's clear that you took her comments out of context and the two of you have a history of less-than-stellar encounters. This is especially important in such a drama-fueling, poorly-researched, tabloid-style "article" like this.--Jorm (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to be notified, but a quick email to me to ask about my comment would have a) been courteous and b) saved you the awkwardness of having to be corrected by me in these comments. As for "fuelling rumours", it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of that after publishing this sensationalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, you didn't even reach out to James Alexander before writing and publishing this?? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on what both Jorm and GW say. It's not the quote itself that reads as if GW has insider information, but the introductory statement: "GorillaWarfare [...] appears to be best informed, and explains in one of her posts...". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+2 Like (RIP Google+) on Jorm and GW's comments. Couldn't have said it better myself. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The most surprising thing is that K reads Wikipediocracy. ∯WBG^converse 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've worked in big city IT companies with 25 to nearly 50% staff turnover, and yes when it approached 50% the organisation was stressed. I've also been involved in public sector organisations where the staff turnover was below ten%. If the Signpost is going to criticise the WMF for having a revolving door, it would make sense to quote what the staff turnover level is now and what it was during the troubled period a few years back. ϢereSpielChequers 15:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, I don't believe that The Signpost is obliged to provide those kinds of in-depth stats, for one thing, the availability of its editors and contributors is so limited, it's either that or no article at all. I just remember that when I joined the project, there were 7 staff, nowadays there are over 300 (apparently not including the spin-off organisationns)and the volunteers who provide the content that provides the donations that provide their salaries have a right to some transparency. The problems that high staff turnovers bring with them include an important loss of institutional memory and a long and steep learning curve for newcomers. The lack of any visible form of hierarchy or at least clear lines and levels of responsibility also exacerbates the situation and does not help the volunteer community to build bridges and gain confidence with the WMF. The new WMF website actually cloaks some of the employees under further levels of navigation away from the main staff page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kudpung, having reread the article I think my beef was with the "WMF staff turntable continues to spin" headline, the actual article is just focused on three changes, two departures and an arrival. The growth from 7 to 300 is a different topic, and as a former WMUK employee one where I probably should listen rather than opine. ϢereSpielChequers 21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is presumably not the level of turnover from a corporate point of view, but more the concept of revolving door (politics). Wikipedia, like government, has been envisioned by many as a noble enterprise seeking fairness ... and such enterprises are seen as unmined resources by every capitalist with a pick-axe. When someone goes from working for the government of Singapore, not a free society, into Wikipedia, that should immediately raise questions in our minds. When someone comes out of Wikipedia into Twitter, we should wonder if they had any way to earn goodwill with the company first. I don't know these things mean anything in these particular cases -- I don't have an NSA-eye view of what lurks in the individual human soul, if I did it wouldn't stop anything because I don't have their omnipotence either. All I know is that the utopia of free information on computers has rapidly degenerated into a dictatorship of machine ownership and control by a few people who corrupt everything, and Wikipedia is the least of what stands to be destroyed, however large that itself may be. In the end the planet itself will be passed through the flames to Moloch. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The insinuations regarding James' departure are completely unfounded, based on absolutely nothing other than wild accusations on Wikipediocracy. That blurb reads like a tabloid, not news, and it's about as accurate as one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In comparison to the article below, the persons leaving "blurb" is NOT classy, it's downright tabloidy snark, jumping over someone gets a better job to throw slime. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• James continued to be involved with important community issues and meetings and remained the face and voice of the Trust and Safety team right up until his departure. The claims and implications in the piece are based upon merely rumors from Wikipediocracy and lacks any sort of credibility. I am disappointed such a piece would even be allowed to be published. Mkdw ^talk 05:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I have no complaint about the Signpost including editorial pieces from a non-neutral point of view. However, I do care if these pieces are selected for publication and receive wide distribution if they lack credibility, especially when they are about people in our community. I saw a seemingly related discuss on Kudpung's user talk page from Bri. I look forward to the next Signpost issue explaining their "editorial policy on POV in News and notes" and specifically how they view their responsibility when publishing POV pieces that are not credible and seemingly lack integrity. If a piece concludes with "the reasons for Alexander's departure, and why he was not publicly thanked for his eight years' work remain unknown", it brings into question the policy to willingly publish rumours from Wikipediocracy as a POV editorial. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, I think the report above on Alexander's departure is evenly balanced. The WMF never mentioned the staff change, the only hint came from 1) the disappearance of Alexander from the staff list, and 2) a Wikipedia arbitrator claiming to have inside information which they posted on Wikipediocracy, which was apparently discovered by a Google search. When approached, a very senior (and very friendly) WMF source replied but declined to comment, and another did not respond at all. The conjecture is not of The Signpost 's making, which leaves the question entirely open as to why Alexander left, whether he was lured by a better and/or more interesting offer, or had become disenchanted with the WMF, whatever, but why he was not thanked for his years of service, as most managers are when they leave, remains a mystery. Whatever his current situation is, we naturally wish him all the best. The rest is history - The Signpost moves on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving where? To the gutter? Your "enquiring minds want to know" [1] [2] ending is among the most unethical trash there is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for people to leave the Wikimedia Foundation without an announcement being made. In fact, as I discovered while compiling my "Wikimedia timeline of events, 2014–2016", it happens fairly often. Do you also conjecture that the folks listed there who did not make or receive on-(public)-list departure emails left under suspicious circumstances? Where are their speculative Signpost articles? Or is James Alexander for some reason unique in receiving this treatment?

It also is ridiculous to claim that Wikimedia employees not commenting on the circumstances regarding someone's departure is somehow indicative of there being an issue, and not standard practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Like others here, I am a bit frustrated by the coverage of my departure. While you are right that a large public announcement wasn’t made on wikimedia-l or the like, I certainly did not keep it secret. Public announcements on those lists are increasingly rare nowadays (and, honestly, typically for people higher in the organization chart than I was); appropriate announcements were made in advance to those I worked with most closely, including ArbCom, the Functionaries list, CheckUsers, the stewards and the like. In addition I made a long and detailed post on Facebook where a large number of Wikimedians who I count as friends saw it and responded. I didn’t update my social media sites right away because I was waiting until I had actually started my new job (Jan 14th). The Signpost could have easily acquired that information and more by asking me directly. Both my personal username and email are well known and open. Like GorillaWarfare I received no outreach at any point.

Regarding my actual decision to leave, I’m very proud of the more than 8 years I put into the Foundation and the work I’ve done over that time to grow and professionalize our trust and safety program. While there is certainly more to be done (and more is being done!) I am confident that the team is in a good place to do it without me. After 8 years (as many have pointed out, an eternity in San Francisco terms), I wanted a bit of a new challenge. Twitter is not the first company to reach out to inquire about my working with them, but they were the most attractive. My conversations with them (and the past 3 weeks since I started) made it clear that they share my desire to try and balance the importance of free speech and transparency with safety and health online. Everyone I’m working with is there for the right reason.

I enjoyed a couple of weeks of vacation between roles, and the past couple weeks have been focused on my new job, but I have every intention to continue to be involved in the movement I love so much as a volunteer just like I was before I started to work in it. My former colleagues at the Foundation have been generous and kind in supporting me in this new role, and I expect to continue to interact with them regularly - now in my new capacity. Oh and, while I stand by the Foundation’s policy of not detailing the reasons for behavioral investigations and actions, I also stand completely behind the “registration withdrawal” you mention. YouTube documentation (especially when it’s the recording of someone successfully trying to deescalate an in person situation) rarely tells the full story :). James of UR (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Having complimented another piece in this issue of The Signpost, I'll now add my two cents into this one. The fact that Wikipedia has been blocked by a state-owned ISP is a big deal; however, the manner in which this section has been written "buries the lede". That Venezuelans are dietarily challenged is undoubtedly true - I could find plenty of well-respected sources that confirm it - but it is completely irrelevant to the authoritarian control of media in Venezuela. That control would have been an excellent focus of the article, and would have been entirely in keeping with the mission of The Signpost. I am disappointed that the writers went for the fluff to the point that it distracted from the issue.

  I'm even more disappointed in the skewed, sensationalistic writing about the departure of James Alexander. You wrote a story about someone without asking for their comment; that's well below the standard most people would feel The Signpost should strive to achieve. And you wrote a story that suggests something bad happened here, without any basis in fact. That's also well below the standard I think most of us expect. "News and Notes" can - and should - be written without sounding like a second-rate tabloid. You can do better, and I think we should probably expect better. Risker (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That statement by the Venezuela Wiki organization seems particularly classy, in what must be a very trying situation. Brave, even. Well done. You are indeed independent from the rest of us and the other Wikimedia organizations but still in the thoughts of many of us. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoudn't that be "turnstyle"...? - wolf 23:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apokrif (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement is a translation wreck.

The original statement from Wikipedia Venezuela is here, (as Apokrif notes above).Their exact words are:

Wikimedia Venezuela, y usuarios de Wikipedia, nos han manifestado su imposibilidad de acceder a la enciclopedia libre a través del proveedor de servicios de Internet más importante de Venezuela, la empresa del Estado CANTV.

We ended up with:

... have told us their inability to access the free encyclopedia through the most important Internet service provider in Venezuela, the company of the CANTV status.

It looks like a google translation. The correct translation is:

.. have told us their inability to access the free encyclopedia through the most important Internet service provider in Venezuela, the state-run company CANTV.

It is important to understand that Maduro controls communication (and elections) in Venezuela through control of CANTV, which is the state-run and state-owned telephone and internet provider (election results are transmitted over phone lines, and phone tapping is routine). It is not surprising that Wikipedia's article on CANTV has a deficient lead, and does not make this clear. I have fixed.

I am relieved to see that we now have a Wikipedia Venezuela that speaks up-- in the early days of chavismo, there was clear state influence in the entire suite of Venezuela articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]