Wikigenerations: thirteen years later

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

 Completed Excellent; this is in the August 15 issue. jp×g 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Inspired by Adam's recent article on finding and improving photos for biographies, I wanted to write a quick guide to finding and improving images for biology using a tool called [https://wikilovesinat.netlify.app/ Wiki Loves iNaturalist]. It has a lot of nice functionality that I encourage you to play with, but before we get on a mini-tutorial, let's do a round of before and after photos so you can see what it offers.

Thanks @Smallbones I saw the previous article and actually started using WikiLovesInat bc of it but found that by focusing on sourcing images for fairly rare endangered animals I was coming up with many blanks bc almost no one had photos of "rare Peruvian shrew" much less ones that were free use. But then I started doing a series of stubs on west-coast-of-North-American gall wasps and realized WikiLovesiNat was a keystone to finding good photos for this moderately obscure kind of biology. This piece was my attempt to publicize this very useful tool I feel deserves more attention. Anyway thanks for looking. Appreciate it. jengod (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jengod: So, is it ready to publish. We have an hour or so to decide and make it so. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...sure. :) I just did another pass on the text and bumped up the multiple image baseline width to 500 and I was once told to never write in 2nd person, which I think this is, so yes, it's fine. YOLO. :) I'm a big girl and I think I can handle whatever comes next. it's totally up to you guys. LMK what you need. jengod (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published, very nice. jp×g🗯️ 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
@Will (Wiki Ed): Yeah, this looks good. If you can format it into a draft we can run it in the next issue. Thanks! jp×g 06:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I have adapted this article from our blog to the Signpost. I'm not positive the formatting is perfect, so feel free to let me know. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.  Done jp×g🗯️ 23:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
@Larataguera: This is nice. I would like to publish this. There are a couple things that I would be cautious about with copyediting (for example, the diff you cite here looks like it's just vandalism). I am no scholar of Wikipolitics, but I think that there was a bunch of it with this project which complicates the issue a little (not sure -- it might have been a similarly named one). Overall, though, it is a good concept and it's written well. I can move it to the holding tank for next issue if you want. jp×g 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks! I'm happy to make edits to address any concerns of course.
As for that particular diff, it may have been vandalism, though if so, it went unreverted until I fixed it a few days ago. (It introduced an invalid parameter in the template.) Shortly before that edit, the project was marked semi-active; that's how it's marked right now since my recent edit, and that may be more strictly accurate. I revamped the project page back in December, and another editor observed then that the project was struggling to remain active.
I would love for CSB to be an active and effective project, but I also don't think the community should pretend that this issue is being addressed when it isn't. Larataguera (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary, I can change that sentence to more accurately reflect the state of affairs I've just summarised above, and if there are any other concerns just raise them wherever you like and I'll see what I can do to address them. Thanks again! Larataguera (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.  Done jp×g🗯️ 23:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

FAC Retrospective

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Hi. What's the status of this? Is there something else I need to be doing to it? Can you at least confirm that you want to use this; if not, then I'll post it elsewhere. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG @Bluerasberry @Bri @Headbomb @Smallbones Any word? Could somebody at least acknowledge that I've submitted this to the right place and it hasn't fallen into a black hole? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I sent you an email.Sorry for the delay. I suggest some rewritting then submitting it in "In focus". Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Wikimania 2024 Scholarships

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Does this need to be a separate story? It short and honestly not very informative - instead of PR lyrics ("a celebration of the ways we work together" etc.) our readers might be more interested in, say, the eligibility criteria, or stats about how many scholarships are usually awarded each year. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good, published. jp×g🗯️ 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
I think this is publishable, but needs some context. Was it a volunteer speech? A speech given as part of some initiative? An invited talk? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was an invited keynote. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - invited keynote. Sorry I missed the question earlier! SDeckelmann-WMF (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Headbomb is there a reason that this wasn't published in the recent edition? Does it need any changes to make it into the next one? KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was simply a matter of JPxG not having much time to review and format it into a Signpost-style page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @JPxG is there anything else needed in order for Selena's piece to be published in the next Signpost? Thank you. KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KStineRowe (WMF) @JPxG I converted it into Signpost format, hopefully did it correctly. let me know :) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, published. jp×g🗯️ 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Crossword

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Good, published. jp×g🗯️ 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The Hunt for Bertil Ragnar Anzén

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Moved to a Signpost draft, changed status to "in development". I think this can go to "approved" any time. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones: Thank you!
I could definitely get a photo (the illustration in this article is from my kitchen), but the paintings are still covered by copyright. As a Swedish Wikimedian, fair use isn't my strongest suit. Would it be applicable here? /Julle (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "fair use" is not allowed on The Signpost since we don't publish in article main space. There's no way for us to get around this. Can you give us a link to the Swedish article if they have a photo. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I know how to find https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertil_Anz%C3%A9n , but no photo there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones: I suspected this might be the case – the thought of including the paintings originally didn't even strike me, and I asked mainly because you had mentioned them as a potential illustration. I'm unaware of any free images of Anzén, unfortunately. /Julle (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

WikiProjects Israel and Palestine

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
{{completed}} Published -- a good article -- don't know why this was stickling around on the submissions page still. jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Submission proposal: Op-ed on Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
 Done In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29/Op-Ed -- good stuff. jp×g🗯️ 01:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Update on the new Community Wishlist

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
 Done as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-05-16/News_and_notes#A new Community Wishlist survey -- good stuff. jp×g🗯️ 01:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Submission

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Needs clarification
@A.FLOCK: This looks like a good start for a pitch; right now it seems like something more appropriate for an entry in News and Notes, or maybe In the Media, rather than a standalone article. I would be fine with incorporating it into one of these columns if you'd like. Otherwise I think it would require some more in the way of introduction, independent analysis or interpretation, et cetera. Perhaps it would be possible to do a deeper examination of the actual casepages and decisions involved and compare them to the video? jp×g 06:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I'm okay with being part of an article as long as I am credited in the byline. Thank you and sorry for the long wait!! A.FLOCK (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Progress on the plan: How the Wikimedia Foundation has advanced on its Annual Plan goals

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Hey JPxG first-time submission, just checking whether there's anything else I need to do in order for this piece to be considered for the next issue. Thanks so much! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ELappen (WMF): Sorry about the delay -- I am happy to run this in the next issue if it is up-to-date, or can be made so (I would be glad to help in this if possible). Is this still extant? jp×g🗯️ 03:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Thanks for this. I'm thinking about how to best update this content. I'll either update this draft directly or propose something a bit different. Will let you know here soon. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I've used a more recent update to go with a list rather than a long-form post. The new draft is here. Let me know what you think about this approach. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Just making sure you've seen the update to this piece. Happy to take any feedback, and I'm fine for it to run whenever makes sense in the next couple of issues. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it in, it's in the next issue :) jp×g🗯️ 09:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}} jp×g🗯️ 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
@Novem Linguae and Samwalton9 (WMF): Sorry about the delay -- I've moved this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report, should go out on the 31st. Thank you for submitting this; if you want to go over and make sure everything is still up to date I would appreciate it. jp×g🗯️ 02:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JPxG! Will do. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}} jp×g🗯️ 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

ELappen (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is at News and notes for the next issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}} jp×g🗯️ 06:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Kalloor

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Discussion on the recent possible-hoax Kalloor. Spoke briefly to JPxG over email about it and they gave me advice. I've also talked about original information on Wikipedia. The article was insignificant, so possibly a good chance to have a discussion without a heated political debate? Based the writing style around other Signpost articles. Svampesky (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is good and I will try to get it into the current issue. jp×g🗯️ 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear. I've made one minor edit to the 'about the author' bio here, but everything else is fine. If it needs more length, or something, send me an email and I'll get it done quicker than if I'm notified on my talk page. Also, the line that reads citing Yoohanon Chrysostom as an example, might be better off saying citing Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor as an exampleSvampesky (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: The draft still contains two red "FACT CHECK THIS" warnings. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the copyeditors, which I assume are admins or have a bit more technical knowledge than me. Admins can see deleted pages, but I can't. All it needs is confirmation on the date the page was originally created (as the hoax talk page and project page differs). I don't know whether you an are an admin or not, so I'll ping JPxG because I know he is. The deadline was fast approaching— but in retrospect I should have contacted an admin, such as my mentor, to sort it out before submitting. Svampesky (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified my mentor asking for confirmation on the article's creation date, if they respond it can be found here User talk:Firefangledfeathers#Question from Svampesky (01:53, 7 June 2024). Svampesky (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Svampesky. The article was created on 31 August 2005. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) per Special:Diff/1227654739. I'll go and edit that into the draft. Svampesky (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Fact check on the date in the draft completed. Svampesky (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'll also note that I've done a pronoun-check on the editors mentioned. TenPoundHammer's userpage says This user identifies as non-binary so the piece uses "they". Piotrus' userpage has a userbox which says ...because he believes that the Singularity is coming, so the piece uses "he". Svampesky (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG and HaeB, can you review this edit for me please. I made a stylistic choice which I don't intend to a newbie coming into a place to disregard rules about the style guide Special:Diff/1227782103. I made it easy to be reverted. I will say that I personally think it reads so much better with the distingushing colour, as I now know what the link leads to. Before it was a bit unclear. The blue-green colour choice is from me searching "colours beginning with E" (with E for editor), and the first result was Earth. But can also be U, meaning "user", for "Uranus" which is also blue-green if there needs to be another colour based reasoning! Svampesky (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky Sorry for coming in unexpectedly... Maybe, the only real issue with this choice is that some readers might struggle with color differences, but I don't mind it, to be honest!
Also, I've just moved your draft into a proper Signpost column, so you can keep working on it from there. Oltrepier (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do really like the idea of having distinct styles like this -- one thing I've noticed is that {{tq}} looks very meh (wtf is that shade of green?) and more importantly causes everything it's used in to have inconsistent line height (due to using a different font). I have put it on my to-do list to experiment with some more Signpost-exclusive formatting templates for stuff like this (i.e. we already have our own for side images, blockquotes, etc). I hadn't thought of having userpage links be a different color from normal links, it sounds pretty smart, although it would require some effort (figuring out a shade, making a template for it, integrating it into the draft/writing process, etc) and this issue is pretty late as it is so I think for now we should use use the normal link style for these. jp×g🗯️ 23:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the idea. The intention was to be subtle. The 'blue means link' standard should be kept, per blue-red (AKA purple) meaning a clicked link. I don't think there should be any new colours (like amber means article) in my opinion. The hex I chose was lifted from the blue-green article as I thought that would the 'Wikipedia consensus' of what the standard blue-green shade is. Svampesky (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I updated my signature. Look how cool it is 😎 Svampesky (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based. Also marking this section {{completed}} jp×g🗯️ 06:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On editing Wikisource

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
I like this and will try to get it in the next issue. jp×g🗯️ 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Cremastra (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/Sister projects. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission opinion piece on the upcoming BoT election

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Opinion piece on the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections and the inherent flaws in the system. Readership of the Signpost would probably be just the right group of people to address this to. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Is there some kind of process to get this opinion piece published? It was already completed before June 11 and could be included in the next publication :-) Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/Op-Ed. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Madonna

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
@ing: JPxG, HaeB, Smallbones, Bri and Headbomb. CC: Pbritti from WikiProject Christianity who helped with proofreading, if there's anything I missed. Svampesky (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd like to see here are links to these discussions/events. Like when you write "On 1 April 2008, a proposal was made to move the page Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna", I'd be curious to see what that discussion/proposal was exactly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Leave it with me, I'll get it sorted. Svampesky (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think the diffs are correct. When I use the "Special:Diff", it sometimes displays the diffs that are next to the one I need. Svampesky (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see even any potential controversy here concerning editors' names. What's the issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My previous piece the editors mentioned commented about being mentioned, so I was unsure. The other potential issue was about discussing religious topics, hence keeping it offline and getting a specialist to proofread it. For example, in the offline draft I sent to Pbritti, I referred to Mary as "Virgin Mary", which I didn't realise was a POV title. Svampesky (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG It was placed in the 'Serendipity' column rather than the Discussion report. Could this potentially be a non-neutral designation? While I agree with the Madonna primary topic consensus, I don't believe it's particularly serendipitous that someone who is known for causing controversy by offending religious sensibilities throughout their career is the main subject over the religion that is offended. Svampesky (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, On Editing Wikisource is serendipitous as it involves something beneficial discovered by chance. I'm not going to edit war or bludgeon over it. Consider my stick dropped. :) Svampesky (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see your point. This can be something else. jp×g🗯️ 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-07-04/Discussion_report. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

This is my first Signpost submission, and it may be a bit too late, but I spent the past few days writing this piece about Etika as his article will appear on the front page on June 24th (0:00 UTC). It's a little long, but I tried my hardest to make sure it flows well and I got my points across. If anyone's willing to review it quickly, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/Opinion. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining ru.WP in the face of a shortage of admins

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
I apologise for nearly missing this. I think submissions are usually posted at the bottom, as this page can get quite disorganised. Which column do you think it should be in? I would suggest the Technology report; what are your thoughts? (I also have no say whether this story will be ran or not). Svampesky (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections for "Technology report", it will be better if you (The Signpost editors) choose the column, because I don't know well what columns are in The Signpost. Also, I have used ruwiki's style of adding new themes to public discussions: all new themes are added from above in ruwiki. MBH (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly a technology report, partly a sister project report, partly an in-depth view of an editing process often overlooked -- I've put it at "in focus", may restructure this issue later. jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just copyedited the draft further (now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus). Looks great to me; a very interesting topic. @MBH: Just one question about the following part:

In 2024, the author of the first ORES-based bot improved it by adding detection based on LiftWing scores [...] LiftWing is a new WMF vandalism detection ML-based system

LiftWing is actually the name for the WMF's entire machine learning infrastructure, which serves many different models. They have a separate list of these at m:Machine learning models - can you identify and link the newer model that is used in that bot?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NNs used by the bots are often kind of hard to figure out deets on. I suspect this is partly by design (they are anti-vandal nets after all) -- e.g. user:ClueBot NG doesn't say what model it uses at all, that I can tell. I will try and figure it out... jp×g🗯️ 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB "revertrisk-language-agnostic" and "revertrisk-multilang-(ru|uk)". Just like "damaging" score in ORES. MBH (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About new pic: did you think many readers could understand a connection between this picture and an article text? Touhou isn't a popular franchise, I wouldn't mention user- and bot names in article at all. MBH (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been copyedited (I'm not a copyeditor, so I'm unsure if I'm allowed to make edits), perhaps wikilink in the caption to read 'Reimu, with spell cards, prepared to do battle.' Svampesky (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we mention the names of users involved in stuff -- it's easier for readers to track down discussions et cetera and find mor information on their own -- but I agree that a clarifying note may be useful. I could go either way on the image, frankly. jp×g🗯️ 12:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Crossword 2

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
@Cremastra: This looks good, probably do with being a bit bigger. If you wanna do that, epic, otherwise I will try and throw something together. jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll expand it over the coming days. Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time we got another crossword! I was starting to think I would have to make it myself. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9) Small Middle-Eastern country; associated Wikiproject was started in 2006.
This is ambiguous, could be Qatar, could be Yemen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: That happens a lot in off-wiki crosswords. In these cases, you can use the answers that intersect, which would in this case seem to indicate that they mean Qatar. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I never liked those ambiguous answers. I would suggest WP:QUICK as an alternative, or just a better/unambiguous clue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At next issue, I will call this published. jp×g🗯️ 11:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Declined
@Novem Linguae, @JPxG I reworked the submission per discussion with @Bluerasberry in the Signpost Discord so now it focuses on WP:ARBSEX, the discussions of modern issues would be in part 2. I'm hoping it can go under User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/sandbox/Draft:Disinformation report. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, while the article (version I read) is largely focused on Cantor's wrongdoing and the view that it was not addressed enough in the 2013 Sexology arb case, it very much also gives the impression that Jokestress was treated unjustly (e.g. the Arbitration Committee let him get away with it...and more heavily sanctioned editors who tried to stop him.). Before the Signpost seems to go to bat for Jokestress, however, it is worth reviewing the evidence presented in that case, especially by those who are not Cantor or Jokestress. Aside from behavioral issues mentioned in the case, which I won't comment further on here, she seemed to have a POV on certain sexology matters that was itself WP:FRINGE, often in the opposite direction of Cantor's. The concept of paraphilias in general is completely mainstream in psychology and psychiatry, especially when it comes to those that motivate harm to others, but Jokestress' view is that "paraphilia" is an arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept, and she edited accordingly. [1] And yes, this does extend to paraphilias that motivate harm, as laid out here here and here, with copious links to diffs and discussions. Please dig into it; what she said about certain of these paraphilias really is problematic. It extends far, far beyond skepticism of Cantor's and fellow-travelers' ideas about gender identity, which is totally okay and well within the mainstream to criticize. I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban this user was, or might have been, wrong.
On a different note, it also states (bolding mine), Some I've spoken to have suggested it belies a shift in what is WP:FRINGE: his views, while deeply offensive, were in vogue in 2008, or even 2013 during the sexology case. But reliable sources were clear, even then, that the majority of the LGBT community found those views offensive. Perhaps in 2008, his views were slightly more notable, but he was editing until 2021, when his work was considered FRINGE for a decade. These parts are absolutely crucial to the argument that Cantor should have been sanctioned far sooner than he was, but they are completely unsupported. I recognize that this is just a draft, though, so there might already have been intention to support it down the road. Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) struck and replaced mistaken link Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input, to start with I do want to clarify that James is only ~1/4 of the story by design, she's an important figure but not the main focus. With regards to treating her unjustly, I cannot help but draw the conclusion her editing had issues, but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this, and when ArbCom publicly ignored Cantor while giving her a TBAN on everything queer that could have easily been a proportionate "paraphilias and CAMH" TBAN they dropped the ball.
Regarding your point on it being FRINGE back then, when TMWBQ was published in 2004, the response from the LGBT community was overwhelmingly negative. The basic premise (there are 2 kinds of trans women: fetishists and really feminine gay guys) is kinda obviously fucking stupid/offensive. Academic critiques of Blanchard's typology abounded, a quick sample of 2008 to 2012 found this in 2008, some in 2010, 2011, and 2012 - almost every academic piece supporting it was from Bailey, Blanchard, Lawrence, or Cantor.
Regarding the examples you gave for James' behavior:
  • In the first link, she provided sources to that effect - noting that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia does seem relevant to the article. The current definition of paraphilia, AFAICT, does not require harm to others, or even oneself. What is sexually normal and abnormal is obviously in no small part a socio-political / sociological question.[2]
  • Since you only linked to Flyers evidence, I'll go over hers first. AFAICT James' argument weren't fringe, it was that the pedophilia article should reflect both the psychiatric definition and the history of the term and practice, and she was being WP:POINTY about it reflecting only the former and Cantor's role in that. Flyer refers to the discussion above and some other pointy ones.
  • MrADHD seems to refer to her arguments for acknowledging sociology/history as fringe
  • MVBW does not mention of James' edits. He tries to frame James' concerns about pathologization as FRINGE, and refers to transgendermap.com as an attack site for having lists of 1) Bailey's loudest public supporters and 2) those who publicly advocate pathologizing views of trans people. 1) this site was archived by the library of congress as important to LGBT history [3] and 2) is trusted by the SPLC[4]
  • WLU's does raise points, and James should have assumed better faith, but I am reminded of the society for following paranoiacs - Cantor repeatedly tried to put the article in there (mentioned in the signpost piece), an article which received its fair share of criticism - it's understandable if not regrettable and a problem she's touchy about it.
TLDR: By analogy, if somebody is recreationally drop kicking toddlers in a park for years, and somebody starts running around shaking people and setting off fireworks and saying "why don't we do something", and constantly tries to stop the baby-kicker, and ends up banned from the park instead of the baby-kicking dude, that was an unjust and wild decision. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my links was supposed to be to MrADHD's evidence; I have struck and replaced it.
but she was a saint relative to Cantor on this - I strongly disagree; I think they are two very different people who were each deeply problematic in their own idiosyncratic ways. Cantor supported the Blanchard typology and Jokestress didn't, yes; but (since I have to get more specific now) Jokestress argued, for example, that pedophilia being described as a disorder is reification and a NPOV violation [5], that pedophilia is an "iatrogenic artifact" (meaning the harm is caused by the medical system) and equated it to now-rejected disorders [6], and stated the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy is based on moral panic and invited people to try to get the policy reviewed and to make no mention of "if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject" (but still inviting such people) [7]. I encourage anyone to read these diffs, and others from the case, in full. Neither of the stars of this sorry saga are 'saints'.
The Signpost should tread carefully in how this history is depicted; at minimum I would hope that (if accepted) this article at least acknowledges even if vaguely that there were issues back then besides just transphobia. Crossroads -talk- 07:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we go over James' views on pedophilia, let's quickly look at Cantor's: we are talking about somebody who's whole shtick is that Pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation tied to neurobiology- see his comments on "LGBTP", his work with the Prostasia foundation that supported terms like MAP and campaigned for child sex dolls, his starring in I, Pedophile (article written by him), and support of Virtuous Pedophiles (article also written by him).[8][9] Note how for the latter, some were perhaps not so virtuous.[10] Like, if we're bringing up views on pedophilia, Cantor's pretty sus. Fitting for a proponent of AGP/HSTS, his research on this supposed "orientation" only extends to men, and he leaves women out of his schema.
Now, I am not an expert in this topic - but I will say I'm suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation. If we accept it's true however, that a subset of the populaton is inalterably and permanently attracted to pre-pubescent/pubescent children due to a brain abnormality - that doesn't explain the practice outside that disorder. Sociologically and even psychologically speaking there are different explanations for pedophilic behavior than "chomos brains are just wired that way". Linguistically, there are other definitions. Even Cantor agreed in those articles, he just wanted the article focusing on the definition he helped create.
James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice (ie, what people mean when they say pedophilia), even Cantor in those archives was agreeing that CSA was not limited to those he'd diagnose with pedophilia. You selectively quote those diffs - "pedophilia" has a shifting and varying definition both inside and outside of fields that study it[11], you ignore her calling it iatrogenic is followed by explaining its the medicalization of a social problem and her comment that not only Cantor's definition of pedophilia should be covered in the article[12], and in that last link she's complaining about being pedo-jacketed for trying to bring neutrality to the article.[13]I must confess, it's kinda funny to see James and not Cantor stepping up for self-identified non-offending pedophiles considering that's Cantor's job - I'm almost wondering if it's another case of very bad taste satire.[14]
Sidenote: when reviewing the case and reading the pedophilia article I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one.
I said James' was WP:POINTY and disruptive, but you are ignoring three things 1) she was banned from all queer topics in addition to such discussions; 2) Cantor was not banned from either; and 3) the DS were about trans stuff, then sexology, then hebephilia (all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)). On trans topics, she was absolutely a relative saint. On pedophilia, she does not seem to me to be the FRINGE activist she was said to be and there did seem to be issues with the article prioritizing the diagnosis.
TLDR: Cantor seems to have fought to have the pedophilia article reflect only the diagnosis and his idea that pedophilia is a neuroanatomical condition and no other definitions or historical sociological discussion, James was WP:POINTY and could not let it go that was the case but ffs points she was making were sociology 101 though you've very selectively quoted out of context - the arbcom case itself was kicked off by more than that article. I'm not devoting much space to it in the signpost piece because 1) it's already long and that's not the main focus and 2) from the data I have, the thesis of that would be Cantor helped Wikipedia normalize pedophilia, the concept of the "virtuous innate pedophile", and promoted himself and his friends (I just checked and pedophilia cites him ~17 times) - in much the same way he dominated wikipedia with his and his friends views of trans people, he did the same with pedos and downplayed criticisms of his medical model.
If anybody wants to quote any of this out of context, refer here: I have taught chomos physical lessons on the errors of their ways, am still dealing with trauma from my own fucked up 14th year on this planet I'm not about to share (but y'all can probably guess), and have no tolerance for pedos - I think Cantor seems to have used WP to normalize pedos and promote his own views on them, and it looks like some editors tried to pedo-jacket James for noting that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
suspicious of the claim that pedophilia is an innate sexual orientation - keep in mind that "innate" and "sexual orientation" are two very distinct claims. That it is at least partially innate (like other brain/mental disorders) is, as far as I can tell, mainstream, but the idea it is a sexual orientation is very much not. (Whether pedophilia is alterable or not is a separate, 3rd matter.) I agree with you that e.g. Cantor's comments about pedophilia as a sexual orientation and "LGBTP" are fringe.
James, AFAICT, is asking a valid question: Why is the article about just a diagnosis and not the practice - I feel that you are (probably unintentionally) steelmanning her here and in what follows - attributing to her a more reasonable position than was actually evident. She was not just arguing for more sociological perspectives; her view seemed to be that all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, and she openly edited accordingly. It's one thing to oppose the medicalization of being transgender or of harmless consensual fetishes; it's quite another to extend this to when people's primary sexual interest involves seeking out partners who cannot consent. Those forms of sexuality really are pathological, and arguing and editing otherwise is pro-fringe. I rest my case on this as the diffs and discussions above are sufficient.
I got the sense all of this could have been solved by having the article "Pedophilia" be about the practice and various definitions and "Pedophilia (diagnosis)" about the specific one - no, this would not have worked. This is similar to what was actually done back then (but with a longer title for the one "about the practice"); it ended up deleted at AfD for being a WP:POV fork.
you are ignoring three things - those just weren't really germane to what I feel are my main points. FWIW, in hindsight, at this point I think it would have been best if the both of them were topic banned from sexuality and gender years before the arb case. If 2024 Wikipedia norms were fully formed back then I bet that would have actually happened, too - the overall approach of being so openly "my particular ideas are correct and the article should reflect them" rather than "here's what seems to fairly reflect the academic consensus" from the both of them is too obvious. But back then was closer to early Wikipedia and its very laissez-faire approach to "anyone can edit", when POV pushers and cranks of every stripe ran rampant.
I'm sorry to hear about the trauma you have experienced. Crossroads -talk- 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we've established Cantor had fringe views on pedophilia that went beyond the medical literature.
Those forms of sexuality really are pathological - I think this is the crux of the dispute: you can say it's immoral, abnormal, etc, without saying it's per se a pathology. One can disagree with framing it as an inherently medical problem without being FRINGE. Murder, racism, beating children, etc, are all obviously bad and immoral behaviors but not medical ones. Same for wanting to murder someone, wanting to beat a child, or thinking racist things while being civil. One can say the same for fucking children or the desire to, obviously awful, not necessarily a medical condition.
With regards to all paraphilias are invalid constructs and inappropriately medicalizing, paraphilias are recurring or intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, places, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals and the paraphilia article is largely about the controversy over what is and isn't "atypical". AFAICT, the DSM-5 atm defines paraphilias as the scientific term for kink and notes they're not inherently pathological, with them specifying "paraphilic disorders" are when "your kink causes problems".
Regarding that idea and content fork, I had indeed come across it before, and only read about half because of it's length. Still, there was support for keeping or merging material and the close noted Some of the content may be suitable for adding to other article(s). I'd spoken in haste, the real solution would have been the pedophilia article including all the definitions.
I feel they are germane, your argument is that James wasn't treated unjustly, mine is she was because the scope of the ban (everything queer) was disproportionate to the issue (her interactions with / reactions to Cantor) and by neglecting to sanction Cantor for his fringe views in any topic they vindicated his misbehavior and views in the eyes of the community. I take the view that if Cantor had been banned years before, James' would not have been driven insane by his presence and advocacy here.
And thank you, I just put that bolded disclaimer there because I don't want to end up accused of promoting a "sex-with-children-normalization point of view"[15] for saying "pedophilia is awful and immoral, but not necessarily a medical condition". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so ... admittedly I haven't followed all the details above and in the current draft (or its many references), so feel free to set me straight. But it's a bit concerning to see that we are apparently seriously discussing which of two problem editors (one permabanned for sockpuppeting, one permabanned from the topic area at hand) the Signpost should portray as a pedophilia apologist and which as unjustly sanctioned by the community? In many news publications, the former would mark a moment where the managing editor takes the writer aside and says something like "great work, but we really need to run this by our legal team before we can publish it".
To be clear, I'm not saying that we should be overly concerned about extreme interpretations of BLP and such, if we are fully sure that we can stand behind every statement and conclusion (or attribute it to other sources at least). Also, this is not about the article's harsh criticism of ArbCom (ArbCom will survive that and the Signpost has published controversial opinions before). I'm just saying that JPxG or whoever is going to make the call to publish it in this issue should make extra sure that if someone covered in the piece with their real name feels inclined to take legal action (or file a complaint arguing that some of the text is a UCoC violation), we can justify every sentence if needed and have nothing to regret. And if, after giving the text a fair review, that Signpost team member is still unsure about that, they should feel empowered to postpone or reject this submission.
YFNS, like Crossroads I am very sorry to hear about the trauma that was inflicted on you, and I sincerely hope you are in a much better place now. It also seems that you have taken the lessons from your own former topic ban and have so far adhered to the remaining restrictions imposed when that ban was lifted (e.g. is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed). You clearly have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. As for physical lessons however: While nobody here can judge you for whatever you are alluding to (by the way, for others here who like me were not familiar with the term: wikt:chomo), I can't help noticing that this may describe another type of situation where one can get very easily get into legal trouble even if most people would agree that one is morally and ethically in the right.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting as someone who copy-edited the piece, I will chime in that I too am rather uncomfortable in The Signpost 'taking a side', if you will, in such highly contentious topics with where both editors clearly were far from saints. A "Yes X was bad, but at least X wasn't as bad as Y" is not an argument I ever liked because it excuses/justifies bad behaviour because there is worst behaviour. I'll also note the huge BLP implications, not just on IRL people but also on active editors that have steered clear of blocks for years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB I want to clarify that the article very deliberately avoids going into the weeds on James and Cantors editing on pedophilia, focusing on the anti-trans quackery aspect. Crossroads came to argue that I really don't think the Signpost should in any way imply that the decision to topic ban [Andrea James] was, or might have been, wrong because James's views on pedophilia were FRINGE, and I should further elaborate on those. I countered that they weren't FRINGE, and if we were mentioning views on pedophilia, I'd mention the multiple pedophilia-related-articles Cantor edited with COIs and what FRINGE views RS say he has publicly advocated (such as that "P" should be added to "LGBT" or that hyper-realistic child sex dolls are a victimless crime or his position on the advisory council for the Prostasia foundation, which pushes the term "minor-attracted person" )[16][17] The discussion between me and Crossroads above is about all the stuff that's not going in the article, rather than a discussion of it's contents.
Thank you for the kind words and advice. I kinda wish I hadn't mentioned that night (which, for the record, was unrelated to the physical lessons and not quite so large an age gap as to constitute pedophilia on their part) - but I did because from what I saw in the archives some editors tried very hard to pedo-jacket James for not agreeing with Cantor's takes on pedophilia, so I wanted to pre-emptively address just how little time I would have for anybody who tried to do the same to me and why. And by "physical lessons", that could mean a lot lol. Art therapy or some shit hypothetically - notwithstanding Occam's razor it's up for interpretation :)
That all being clarified - I've got a request for you and @Headbomb if you're open to it. Me and Bluerasberry went over the article a few times to make sure the claims/refs lined up, and I floated it by a few friends to review and took their concerns into account too, so I think it's airtight now. However, the more eyes critically examining before publication the better - so I'd appreciate if you two could give any amount of time to reviewing it and the sourcing and make sure everything lines up! Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy the last few days and have not been able to devote a proper amount of time to being actively involved in the review and revision process for some of the stuff in this issue, specifically this piece, so I will start by apologizing for that.

I read through this with great trepidation, because unlike most newspapers we are essentially required to give all of our drafts and revisions and feedback as permanent indelible public diffs -- I am sure that whatever I say in this comment it will result in some manner of Cool Kids Crew accusing me publicly of being a whatever, maybe here or maybe on another site. Well, whatever: I have to publish the paper, I have to make it be good, and I have to make it not be bad, and this matters more than my feelings, so if some guy reads this comment and gets mad at me for being woke, or for being a chud, or whatever (both have happened before), or if I get an ANI thread or an ArbCom case request against me as a result of saying this, then I guess that is the price of freedom, but at least I acted freely.

Okay, well, time to be serious: I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of publishing this draft. I have not gotten through the quite-large volume of the documents referenced (e.g. all of the proceedings for the arb case, including a secondary large volume of documents referenced by the statements made there, etc). However, what I've noticed so far is that the case seems to be a total zoo -- at least according to all of the actual evidence that I see, both Cantor and James were acting very badly, both of them were playing fast and loose with representing their own opinions as expert consensus, and so on.

Contrariwise, the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career. The department for the piece is "Disinformation report", it's got a high resolution picture of him as the lead image, and it's got "Anti-trans advocacy on Wikipedia" in big text right over that picture. I think this is too much of an argumentative piece for the Signpost to run, especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that). If you want to post this in your own userspace as an essay, that would be entirely reasonable, but I don't think we can include it as journalism, even as a publication that makes much space available for opinion writing. jp×g🗯️ 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, life can get busy lol.
I've been accused of ridiculous things before as well, c'est la cost of editing Wikipedia. I've got nothing against you and fwiw would defend you from such silly remarks. And why would you get dragged to ARBCOM - I'm the one saying they made an awful decision that screwed over the encyclopedia :p
WRT their own opinions, AFAICT James's POV pushing at pedophilia seems to be a reaction to Cantor's there, but on the issue of human sexuality/gender identity Cantor's by far the worse offender - and he got away with no real sanction. James got banned, and practically stopped editing entirely. Her story on wikipedia ends there. But the story is Cantor didn't - he got another 8 years because ARBCOM looked away - he was promoting FRINGE views here with the stated intent of manipulating the media as he was being paid by the Alliance Defending Freedom to promote them in courts.
WRT portraying Cantor in a negative light, it's hard to paint him in a positive one. He edited with COIs, pushed FRINGE theories, legitimized them through Wikipedia, and was socking almost the whole time. a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career - he made 8000 edits, I covered just some of the highlights (I discovered multiple more COIs investigating - particularly targeting sexologists who disagreed with him). If you think there's a way to put a positive spin on that, or balance it out, I'm all ears.
Additionally, I do want to note RS already frequently note he advocates anti-trans quackery and laws. The fact he is an anti-trans advocate is not news, the fact he used Wikipedia to do so, and got away with it, is.
especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to. This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that) - I'm not sure where you got "ongoing dispute" or "a heavily involved party" from, I joined WP after he was already banned, I learned about him researching the history of GENSEX, and a few months ago I deleted a POVFORK he wrote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence concept of transsexuality (8 to delete, 1 to merge, 1 to keep who encouraged him to write it in the first place). If you'd like me to move that up somewhere (breaking chronological ordering), I can, but I think you're reading a lot into a single AFD of an obvious POVFORK.
I respect you don't think the Signpost can publish it, but I'd like to know how the piece can be improved so it can be worthy of publishing and what specific issues you'd want to see addressed. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See further discussion here and here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{close}}

Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Published. Rack 'em -- thanks for the submission. jp×g🗯️ 09:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Submission Trump raised-fist photo

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Well, per WP:NFCC#9, nonfree images are only allowed in mainspace (which is what the bot is enforcing here), and time is running a bit short for launching an RfC about adding Signpost stories to the exemptions mentioned there ;)
So you will probably need to make do with a link to the image instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published. Rack 'em -- thanks for the submission. jp×g🗯️ 09:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Disinformation Report Take 2

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

The piece was previously discussed above under Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia - the premise is an investigation into James Cantor, who's been making headlines for FRINGE anti-trans advocacy in the last few months and edited trans topics on Wikipedia for a decade. I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions and hope it's not too late to go into this week's issue - my apologies for the lateness I bricked my computer Wednesday morning and it took me 36 hours to fix it. I think the piece has been significantly improved by the feedback I received and I can make any additional improvements necessary! Thanks and best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles - I see you haven't been active in a hot minute, I hope this ping finds you well! Personally, it's a coin-flip for me whether extended wiki-breaks are due to good things going on IRL or extra stress there, so I hope it's the former in your case. I'm pinging you because another former arb weighed in on this piece[18] and I'd like your input for it since AFAICT you were the leading arb proposing sanctions for Cantor.
  1. Do you believe the committee erred in how it handled Cantor? If so, how/why did it err?
  2. Do you believe it speaks to broader issues with systemic bias and/or queerphobia on Wikipedia?
  3. Do you believe there are measures the community/committee can take to prevent such abuse in the future?
No worries if you don't want to comment (but I'd appreciate a heads up so I know not to wait on it lol). Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Query This might sound slightly odd, but what is the evidence that User:James Cantor is actually James Cantor? The person had a Wikipedia article and was notable. What is to say that the editor was a random person using his name? On Talk:James Cantor, there is a banner at the top which reads: The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject. Your piece says that User:James Cantor is James Cantor as a lesser known fact. Wouldn't it have been counterproductive for him to edit under his name and push his views? (cc: @JPxG). Svampesky (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) He confirmed it was him in an interview, my bad. Svampesky (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I get that this piece is loaded with surprising takes but I confirm the premises that I note. These include that Cantor as expert paid presenter on anti-trans ideology was active as a Wikipedia editor in promoting that ideology, and that he violated basic wiki editing norms including by using sockpuppets, and that sources indicate that his testimony had impact in the media environment to give scientific credence to anti-trans perspectives. I also recognize that in this case, ArbCom became a gatekeeper in ruling how Wikipedia included this info, and I agree with YFNS that something about the relationship between ArbCom and contentious information is systemically over-focused on escalating conduct as the key issue when here, the result was Wikipedia's overall promotion of anti-trans content.
My longer term hope for this piece is that it opens our editorial and content review processes more.
There are so many claims here that the overall piece is challenging to address, so again, I am personally backing it if anyone returns wanting a particular Signpost contributor to take responsibility and blame. That said, Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and neither I nor anyone else can catch all the challenges in a work like this, and I hope that after we find a path to publishing this in some form, more editors propose better ways to explain that case, ArbCom, and the extremely fast-changing social trends in global conversations on gender.
If any other editors have demands or requests for getting this article in better shape for the Signpost to publish then I will work through those requests with YFNS. Thanks for considering. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Honestly, you had shown pretty bad judgment in this matter already, by (apparently, according to YFNS) encouraging this submission in the first place despite the author being under community-imposed restrictions (and having previously been banned entirely) in this very topic area, and by expressing your unreserved approval of it despite serious issues that several other Signpost team members (Headbomb, Bri, JPxG, myself) pointed out afterwards. And in your remarks above I still don't see a lot of awareness for such concerns that IMO continue to make this piece highly problematic for the Signpost.
I give that support in part because I especially call for LGBT+ related submissions - that seems to be a bad rationale. The mere fact that a submission is related to a particular topic area should not mean that we run it without regard for issues like BLP etc. To be direct: I know that this is about a political cause that you, like YFNS, feel strongly about. That in itself is not problematic, many of us have such causes that we are very invested in. But it does become an issue when one puts them over community policies, or, in case of the Signpost, journalistic standards. (As a reminder, the Signpost has run multiple other LGTBQ-related stories that are less problematic, including recently the "No Queerphobia" essay originated by YFNS herself.)
I also can't help noticing that in our current issue, several Signpost readers raised serious concerns about failures regarding journalistic standards in not one but two different stories by you (neither of which involved LGBTQ issues). I know that you have since, to your credit, acknowledged these problems, and I continue to value you as a longtime Signpost contributor who has done lots of valuable work. But perhaps such incidents can serve as a reminder to be a bit more conspicuous especially regarding topic areas that you feel strongly about.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: I am confident in my judgement that this is a very interesting story of interest to Wikipedia. I lack confidence that The Signpost has editorial capacity to publish it. Transgender-related controversy is currently a $multi-billion media investment as political positions on the matter tip top-level elections in countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. The subject matter of this story is bonkers enough to make The New York Times or any other global newspaper of record, with the narrative being "Wikipedia article --> court evidence --> establishment of policy or legislation". I cannot back every claim made here but wow, this is a story which is presenting evidence of political lobbying going through Wikipedia and actually changing law, and the thick wikiness of it does make The Signpost an appropriate venue for making an article submission.
Social norms in The Signpost is a bit different than elsewhere in Wikipedia in that there is some hierarchy here. I am not emotionally invested in any particular outcome here, and I would accept anyone's simple "no" without further explanation, which is not the editorial process for the encyclopedia. I appreciate the courtesy of your explanation, but I have the presence of mind and insight to recognize that this is the kind of story that makes the international news and is as wild as journalism gets.
For the LGBT+ angle, I do not need to push or advocate for this story, but more directly, there simply is no one else in this newsroom who has enough subject matter expertise in LGBT+ issues to be able to confirm that this story passes a minimal sanity check. Overall the story has the appearance of total insanity, but it looks legitimate to me. Nothing goes forward in The Signpost without editorial consensus and obviously there is not the appetite for publishing this article at this time. I did persist after the last rejection because the story was declined for particular reasons which you yourself named. No fault - everything is cool - let's stay chill - but in that previous thread, you asked for fact checking and editorial changes, and in response, I am giving you an additional 40+ hours of editorial labor into this including the work of YFNS, my own critique of much of the text, and the recruitment of non-wiki professional sociologist review to improve this. It is not as if the piece was rejected outright then the same thing got resubmitted, because instead, the article is greatly, thoughtfully, laboriously, changed.
Going forward, here is what I want from you, and from the editor of The Signpost in general. If for any reason, whether emotion, intuition, reasons you do not wish to discuss, or whatever else - you do not wish to approve publishing a piece, then say so, because that is what it means to be the editor of a publication. I think what happened here is that you were being polite to suggest editorial improvements to the piece, and sometime after that, you began to feel that even with those improvements the article was not a match for publication here. That is totally okay. There are other venues for publishing.
As for me being more conspicuous in flagging potentially controversial topics that I find to publish - yes, I agree to that for myself. It is good general advice for anyone, but especially for someone like me pushing hot topics. About me or anyone else avoiding problematic or controversial proposals to The Signpost, I really wish you would reconsider on that. You have veto power, other editors do as well, and there is no shame in rejecting a controversial article. I respect your denial, and I am sorry if you felt the need to justify a denial rather than give a simple "no", but I still think The Signpost is better overall inviting submissions no matter how controversial even if many or most may be denied for any or no reason. The denial is not disappointing to me, but I would like you to reconsider imposing a chilling effect on potentially controversial submissions. Allow them, just reject them. Normalize saying no. If anyone ever does want to publish a hot topic, then the The Signpost would be better positioned to do so if it is known to be selective, and has established a precedent in which editors like YFNS and me respect and accept rejection. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YFNS: The piece was previously discussed above - your submission was not just discussed in that previous thread on this page, it was rejected. It's disappointing that you re-posted this here with such a misleading summary. It seems quite clear that you concluded you can simply ignore that decision by the Signpost's editor-in-chief, or pretend that it was merely about some outstanding "suggestions".
Back then, I had asked you on your user talk page to consider the various editing restrictions you remain under in this very topic area. I had suggested that reflect on how a hypothetical adaptation of these restrictions to the particular collaboration mode of the Signpost might look like. In particular the one that says that you are limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed - considering that the article you submitted here focuses extensively on negative information precisely about what you characterize as such an activist. (Also, as mentioned here, it does seem interesting that your full GENSEX topic ban - since lifted -appears to have been imposed out of concerns that are quite reminiscent about the current issues with your Signpost submission, e.g. creating near attack articles about people you perceived as anti-trans activists, or approaching [your] editing from a WP:RGW perspective, according to the closing admin.)
At that time, two months ago, you were already engaging in persistent WP:BLUDGEON efforts to overturn that decision by the editor-in-chief not to publish your submission, and I told you that such tactics, while not article reverts in the sense of your restrictions, may well become similarly disruptive to the Signpost's production process. The response I got from you was entirely ignoring my suggestion, and instead consisted of yet more bludgeoning and badgering. Since then you have continued this kind of WP:BLUDGEON behaviour, e.g. WP:FORUMSHOP-like pinging Smallbones, apparently in the hope that his opinion about your piece will differ from JPxG's, etc. Also, when you pinged former arbitrators asking them to spend time providing input on your draft, were you transparent with them about the state of this submission?
Apropos, I also find it interesting that one of these former arbs sees strong parallels to the 2019 antisemitism in Poland case, where the committee of the time (which included me) also fucked it up and missed an opportunity to put a stop to damaging disinformation targeted against a minority. I don't know if you know this, but the Signpost's coverage of that very topic was extremely controversial last year (with probably the largest volume of pre-publication comments we've ever seen for one story). Lots of editors were attacking us for merely running a review of that peer-reviewed paper, arguing that the review was not critical enough and that it was inexcusable to amplify those researchers' negative characterizations of some editors involved in the controversy. In that case, I supported the publication of the piece (after careful examination of those objections and addressing some valid points), arguing that we were merely reporting and commenting on allegations that had already publicized in a peer-reviewed academic journal. But in case of your piece, I don't see such a defense. Rather, lots of its claims and characterizations of the main character appear to be your own, and as discussed, you are an editor with a highly problematic history about this very topic (even when taking into account your clarifications that your accusations of pedophilia apologia against the subject of your Signpost submission here on the submission page were not intended to be part of the article itself, and that the allusions in your bolded note here may or may not have been about the use of physical violence on your part).
As I said about in the previous thread about this submission: We should make extra sure that if someone covered in the piece with their real name feels inclined to take legal action (or file a complaint arguing that some of the text is a UCoC violation), we can justify every sentence if needed and have nothing to regret. At many journalistic publications, this would be the kind of text where the managing editor notifies the legal department for pre-publication vetting. Your behavior and editing history does not inspire confidence about this at all. It is clear that you feel very strongly that this is a very bad FRINGE anti-trans person, and that you do not mind engaging in behavior that's disruptive to the Signpost's editorial process in order to use the Signpost to widely publicize your negative views about this person.
To be clear, if JPxG wants to change his mind and take the responsibility for publishing this piece with its BLP, reputational and possibly even legal risks for the Signpost, I'm not going to stand in his way. But if he wants to uphold his decision, he has my full support. The fact that we welcome opinion pieces from various perspectives (including sometimes controversial ones) does not meant that we should feel obliged to spend indefinite amounts of time and risks in support of particular contributors' advocacy goals, especially with such clear BLP implications.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: I've repeatedly asked for clarification if the submission being rejected meant 1) rejected in this issue and it needs rewriting for resubmission or 2) the signpost will never publish this no matter how much editing and review it goes through. I've been led to believe it's the former, and given Smallbones comment at the newsroom I wouldn't characterize it as a meritless attack piece. We have multiple high quality RS that say this person makes a living promoting "anti-trans misinformation/disinformation" in those exact terms, that is not my opinion but a widely shared view by RS.I'll also note for the record that the majority of the community opposed that ban, which was started by a forum shopping sock from WPO, and the closing admin said they may have read consensus poorly and given undue weight to accusations against me, but that's another story. Please, if it's the latter case I invite @JPxG: to just say so because I have rewritten the piece repeatedly since my original submission under the impression it was the former. If JPxG tells me plainly it will never be published no matter what, I'll drop it permanently, but I can't read minds. Please don't mistake my ignorance about the more opaque parts of how signpost submissions work with malice. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I will help with the copyediting as I committed to, but that is not an endorsement of the piece, per me saying here: but the content is something I'd struggle to offer an opinion on. It is a fact that the piece targets a Wikipedia editor, User:James Cantor. So I'll help with copyediting (as a neutral role of being a Wikipedian/Signposter); but I'm unable to give a solid support or oppose its publication. As such, there is a high chance of the page being WP:G10'd within minutes of it being published. Svampesky (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read minds - On June 6, JPxG wrote on this page that

the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career. The department for the piece is "Disinformation report", it's got a high resolution picture of him as the lead image, and it's got "Anti-trans advocacy on Wikipedia" in big text right over that picture. I think this is too much of an argumentative piece for the Signpost to run, especially given that it concerns an ongoing dispute that you are, as you admit fairly late in the piece, a heavily involved party to.

As far as I can see, your main reactions to this feedback were to 1) remove the photo, and 2) repeatedly [19][20][21] berating and belittling JPxG for allegedly making a dumb mistake (a case of mistaken identity which he has yet to clarify) in the last sentence (whereas it seems quite clear to me that it was rather you who misinterpreted the intended meaning of "ongoing dispute" and "heavily involved party" there). Yes, you made a few changes to the draft afterwards, including removing one sentence about pedophilia. But the current version still very well matches JPxG's June 6 observation of being "almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light".
Yet you opened this new submission thread claiming I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions. I'm still trying to assume good faith here, but this kind of behavior is becoming indistinguishable from deliberate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:SEALIONing.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote almost the entire article in the intervening time to try and tone it down, remove mentions of Jokestress per the notes of multiple editors, tone down the writing style, adding more RS and context, noting more arbitration cases he was involved in, etc [22]
I did not berate and belittle him, I asked for clarification, because never once on Wikipedia have a seen a single snowball AFD from months ago described as evidence somebody is part of an "ongoing dispute" or is "heavily involved". Blueraspberry also sought to clarify this: Recognize that YFNS is a Wikipedia editor of about 2 years. There was some misunderstanding, and I can vouch that this user came years after the 2013 ArbCom ruling, and was not part of that. [23] The full remark from JPxG was This is a rather concerning omission that fundamentally alters the context of the piece, and it is troubling to me that it is not addressed anywhere except for a single throwaway remark fifteen paragraphs deep (and never revisited after that) - Frankly I'm still confused what I'm "omitting" since that "throwaway remark" was In 2024 [2 years after his ban] I successfully nominated Feminine essence concept of transsexuality for deletion on the grounds it was a clear POV fork where half the citations never discussed the concept and the other half was letters to the editor from Cantor, Blanchard, and Bailey. which summarized all my interactions with him [24] I've even asked how I can disclose it even further.
Please, have some sympathy for the mixed signals I'm getting: Blueraspberry thinks the piece needed review to be Signpost worthy, Headbomb gave me advice on how to refocus the piece[25], and various editors have chimed in with specific issues I've tried to address. When JPxG rejected it, he did not delete it, he moved it to signpost drafts[26], which I assumed meant it needed work and could be published at some point in future. And Smallbones, the past EIC, and the regular author of disinfo report (who I pinged because I was hoping he would help me rewrite the piece to be up to Signpost standards since that's his beat), said Disinformation report - I've been asked to comment and been meaning to. There's lots of stuff I like in the submission, e.g. a detailed argument about why the topic is important, lots of detailed evidence. But I've never had the time to go all the way through it, or I've lost interest by the time I get half way through. This is a real problem. Heaven knows it should be a good article, but if a disinformation report loses my interest half way through, I suggest that most of our readers will also lose interest. The argument and the evidence is too detailed.
For the record, I'll take that advice and try and get it published somewhere else because I'm sick of being accused of bad faith for transparently seeking review and revision - I don't know why seem insistent on assuming bad faith on my part for innocuous things (like asking smallbones from a review and help writing the piece, or trying to figure out if "submission rejected" means "permanently" or "until the issues are addressed"). I thought the community might want to know multiple high quality RS have repeatedly said that somebody pushes "anti-trans misinformation/disinformation" and note what they don't, which is he edited trans topics on WP for a decade before a block for COI editing/socking. It's not everyday the SPLC calls a Wikipedia editor part of a clique who push conversion therapy like cures.
For the further record, I'd have been more than happy with any member of the signpost team axing half the article to salvage it because I know I can run verbose. I just wanted this piece to be worthy of the Signpost because I feel you do important work here and wanted to help - frankly I feel quite hurt you keep taking my attempts to improve the piece as trying to subvert the Signpost or evade my ban or RGW (which you keep saying while ignoring RS agree he is known for anti-trans [d/m]isinformation). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: evade my ban? What restrictions do you currently have? I can't find it in anything in your logs/block log? You said in the piece that it was successfully appealed. Can you provide a link to it and I'd be better informed on whether you are violating it or not with this piece. As I said over email, I really don't want this to cause you to get another ban, (but I wasn't aware that there is currently one in place). Svampesky (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ban, just editing restrictions, I misspoke. HaeB keeps bringing up the ban and restrictions and has argued I am going against the spirit of them. The relevant ones are linked by successfully appealed: a 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed
I saw your email, and appreciated the sentiment, though spent a while scratching my head trying to figure out where the disinfo report supposedly contained disinformation given I've had at least 5 different reviewers checking it at various points. If you can spot specific instances, please send a follow up email with them.
However, it's a moot point I suppose because I'm going to try and take it elsewhere. There is the possibility JPxG will take a look at the revisions and comments from users like Smallbones and be inclined to heavily trim it then publish it, but I'm not betting on that. I've already wasted weeks writing and rewriting the piece and trying to get feedback on it while my motives are insulted and don't want to subject myself to that anymore. If any editor has suggestions for the piece or wants to take it over and rewrite it I'll help if asked, but otherwise I'm done, this is too stressful and I don't want more insults. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YFNS: When I sent that email, I struggled to clearly express my thoughts without causing confusion. Afterward, the above response from @HaeB referenced WP:SEALIONing, which accurately reflects what I intended to convey. Your current restriction, which is broadly construed, could potentially apply to the situation where @JPxG declined the piece, and you then continued to work on it (as in "reverting JPxG's decline by submitting it again"). This is something you should bear in mind and I don't wish for you to face another ban, but I believe that pursuing a report like this may not be beneficial to your case for having the ban lifted. While I understand the ban pertains to articles, your work on a report that will be distributed to hundreds of users via their talk page subscriptions could be perceived as an attempt to exploit a loophole or technicality. The feedback you got from JPxG said the piece seems to be almost exclusively focused on portraying Cantor in a negative light. It is implicitly presented as a serious news feature, but it is more like a laundry list of every bad or dumb or embarrassing thing he did in his whole ten-year-long Wikipedia career., and it still reads like a laundry list. So you submitting it again, as a laundry list, could be seen as violating your 0RR. I mentioned that I wouldn't be able to provide an opinion on the content; however, as general advice, I believe Cantor shouldn't be the primary focus of the report, as this risks it becoming dangerously close to a WP:ATTACK page (more specifically, an attack page of a Wikipedia editor; User:James Cantor). My suggestion is that the article should primarily address ArbCom's handling of the case, rather than placing Cantor at the forefront. Svampesky (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster's RfA debrief

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Outreach by me. The content appears solid, though it may benefit from some additional fleshing out and copyediting to align with The Signpost's style. Svampesky (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, I think it would be best to include Doug's response in the report to provide context for the reader. However, this is your debrief. It currently sits in my sandbox, so I'll add it to the report if you're okay with it. Svampesky (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster, I also think it would be best if it was added by a copyeditor and not by yourself. So I'll add it to the report if you approve. Svampesky (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Twitter

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

A lot of the exact same things to go though. I didn't name the editor who closed the discussion as move to 'X (social network)' in the body, as I don't usually name editors who do things that might be seen as 'wrong' by people who are unfamiliar with WP:AGF. I still linked to the discussions though, so it isn't that hard to find out. In this case, the closer did seem to defend their decision, but I've erred with caution and excluded the name. Svampesky (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the 12 candidates running in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election?

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Definitely something we should cover. Made minor changes, mostly adding links to the BoT/election pages, and moved it into the next issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks MPossoupe (WMF) (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_7