User talk:Springee
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
|
Republican Party article
[edit]Springee I'm confused and surprised at your position on this issue. Should we exclude mentions of White supremacy from certain parts of the Democratic Party (United States) article as well? DN (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topicâ is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks DN. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. Springee (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topicâ is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2024
[edit]- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
The Signpost can now drink beer and chant slogans in Canada. What slogans should we chant for the next nineteen years?
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
Mickey & You: What can you do?
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
A techie looks at the big questions.
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
Let the games begin! The 2024 WikiCup is off to a strong start. With copyright enforcement, AI training and freedom of expression, it's another typical week in the wiki-sphere!
- In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate
The first of two installments, regarding a process of many installments.
- In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia?
Watch out for those space ships!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
What are the editorial processes behind covering some of the most politically polarizing and contentious topics on English Wikipedia?
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
Around the world in 365 days (with many stops in India).
- Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading
The good news is that I've perfected the templates that allow other people to make actually good crosswords.
- Comix: Conflict resolution
Getting down to brass tacks &c.
SamuelRiv and right-wing populism
[edit]I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child pbp 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way. pbp 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
Plus WMF child rights impact assessment, Chinese Wikipedia changes admin rules
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
A stream of consciousness about plagiarism on Wikipedia from the perspective of a user who directly witnessed it.
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
And how you can stop them!
- In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race
Another wobble, more Ackman, our usual pathological optimist, and football in dirty pants!
- In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2
Everything you really wanted to know about writing featured articles.
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
And other new research publications.
- Comix: We've all got to start somewhere
Writing a good subheading for a one-sentence joke is basically like writing an entire second joke so I'm not going to do it.
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Job changes, death, sex, murder, suicide and a vacation!
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
"the exact extent of the obligations" unclear... many such cases!
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
Lower, trust me!
- Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna
Finding the right bumblebee among all the bumblebees!
- In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part
The usual odd articles about Wikipedia.
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
The hunt for Bertil Ragnar AnzĂŠn.
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
Plus films, Grammys and a rumble!
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
&c.
- Comix: Strongly
That's more than weakly!
You know better than to deny good faith
[edit]As you did at Talk:Andy Ngo[5] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Wikipedia says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. Springee (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. TarnishedPathtalk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPathtalk 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPathtalk 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.
- In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. TarnishedPathtalk 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPathtalk 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPathtalk 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 March 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
Plus, the U4C Charter keeps planting seeds, the RfA process is set to become more sustainable, and more news from the Wikimedia ecosystem.
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
And other new findings
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
Plus, naughty politicians, Federal judge not a fan, UFOs and beavers.
- Obituary: Vami_IV
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
If you say it loud enough the views will come your way!
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
135 battle it out; 67 advance
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
[edit]- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
Much effort was spent drafting a movement charter about becoming "essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". How much is spent maintaining it?
- Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy
Signpost interviews Wikimedia Foundation leadership on fundraising banners
- Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles
And does it have anything to do with the unusual decision to let a zero-edit user open an arbitration request?
- Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge
Can we compete with social media? Will aoomers forget Wikipedia?
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
And several papers look at climate change on Wikipedia
- News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified
WLM winners announced, Wikimania 2024, a new Wikimedia movement affiliate, and active enwp admins reach a record low.
- In the media: "For me itâs the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled
Worldwide women turned blue and controversies on Serbian & French Wikipedia.
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
Let me take you to the movies.
- Humour: Letters from the editors
The only worthwhile grievance is the one that prompts satire.
- Comix: Layout issue
margin: 0 auto !important;
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
[edit]- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics, and another wikirace on live TV
Plus, tribute songs and shout-outs outweighing vandalism and hoaxes, a dispute about the real king of the platform and other bits of news.
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
Plus, new updates on the privacy and research ethics whitepaper and the graphs outage situation, and an Iranian former steward is globally banned from Wikimedia projects
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
Outcomes of the event including newly published videos and photos, the archived conference website and program, and some attendee reflections on its significance.
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
A WikiProject report on the đ°đ globe's finest news source!
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
And other recent research publications
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Plus Godzilla meets Francis Scott Key!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
WMF trustee elections, U4C results, Italian ArbCom, WMF and Endowment annual reports.
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
We don't know yet, but there is some encouraging news, nevertheless.
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over â arbitration from '22 to '24
Some go out with a bang, some with a whimper, few with much of a comprehensible explanation.
- In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis
Plus, the WMF joins the Unicode Consortium, Chris Albon talks about AI tools on Wikipedia, communities address under-representation on the site.
- Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure
More queries are failing, and more frequently, so what is to be done?
- Comix: Generations
It do be like that sometimes.
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
With cricket and some cute baby reindeer!
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The RfC
[edit]If you're going to go through and add notes like that to Green sources about 'activist' then I'm sure you wouldn't object to others doing likewise to any source that uses the term 'journalist'? I don't think it's very productive to be quibbling over sources which have been found on the whole to be generally reliable. Do you agree? TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a discussion for the article talk page. Springee (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 June 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023
The Form 990, as well as highlights and FAQs, are now available for review.
- Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
A new model for collaboration between the WMF and the community?
- Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor
Hoaxes and the genesis of information.
- In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say
First line, sixth paragraph, body text or unified Reich?
- News from the WMF: Progress on the plan â how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024
Outlining progress against the four key goals
- Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies
A letter.
- Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth
And various research findings about Wikidata and knowledge graphs.
- Featured content: We didn't start the wiki
No we didn't write it, but we tried to cite it
- Essay: No queerphobia
An essay.
- Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!
... and flagging your articles with big ugly red notices! (This is a good thing.)
- Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer
Movies, deaths, elections (but no cricket).
- Comix: The Wikipediholic Family
Some stuff's only okay in the privacy of the home.
- Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox
Project in shambles â "it had never occurred to us that this was possible".
- Concept: Palimpsestuous
Hypertext.
The Signpost: 4 July 2024
[edit]- News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates
Three new admins, but overall numbers still shrinking.
- Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board
Will we weather the storm?
- In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators
Unbundling, automation, fighting spirit, and a bot named Reimu Hakurei.
- Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
Debate unsettled after seventeen years.
- In the media: War and information in war and politics
Advocacy organizations, a journalist, mycophobes, conservatives, leftists, photographers, and a disinformation task force imagine themselves in Wikipedia.
- Sister projects: On editing Wikisource
A journey to a sister project.
- Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan
Rest in peace.
- Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion
An article about Etika's appeal and legacy in pop culture.
- Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos
A virtual visit to the Inland Northwest.
- Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections
"Simply not good enough".
- Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares
How well do you know the main page (no peeking)?
- Humour: A joke
...!
- Cobwebs: Counting to a billion â manuscripts don't burn
Special:Diff/1 and related techno-trivia more complicated than you'd think.
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps
And other new publications on systemic bias and other topics.
- Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Elections, movies, sports.
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
[edit]- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
Iconic photograph, invalid fair use exemption criterion #3a claimant, or both?
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
Establishment of power-sharing agreement between WMF corporation and volunteer user community in limbo.
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter
Natalia Tymkiv, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, on the Charter vote results, the resolution, meeting minutes, and proposed next steps.
- Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession
A lost Signpost submission from fifteen years ago brought into the light, as good and true now as it was then.
- In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?
Failing forks, smart and well-researched stories, LGBT rights, and oral sex!
- Obituary: JamesR
Rest in peace.
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
Do you know these Wikipedia quotes?
- Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom
Dems in disarray, GOP in chaos â analysts say news expected, but few can predict how race will shape up from here.
Nike
[edit]Offtopic, so I am posting here, but have you looked at Nike, Inc.? Polygnotus (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I recall there being an essay on this. It isn't wp:OTHER but it might have been similar. Basically the idea is that because Wikipedia doesn't have a central editor we shouldn't presume that any particular article should be seen as the standard for how another article should be presented. What this could indicate is that both articles need fixing. Springee (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... Polygnotus (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the Nike article in general but I would presume the offshore labor issues would be the primary controversy. Springee (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... Polygnotus (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
[edit]- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
A STORM over an AI that writes articles. And other notes of interest.
- Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems
And other findings.
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
Musk's Twitter acquisition and rebranding have caused long debates on Wikipedia.
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
And Movement Charter ratification vote comments have been published
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
Possibly paid articles.
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
HouseBlaster's reflections on his RfA. In particular, do not ask superlative questions.
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
Just normally weird!
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Come in, you whippersnapper, have a cup of tea.
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
[edit]- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
JCW compilation now tracks free DOIs, Wiki Loves Monuments getting started, WMF's status as UN observer stymied by China for fourth time.
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
Updates from the Portland pol's case, the war in Gaza, and other Wiki-related reports.
- Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment
And other new research findings
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
Who are they, why are they running and what are they bringing to the Board?
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
What all happened in Katowice?
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
Hannah Clover shares her fondest memories of her first Wikimania.
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
The Olympics (yay!) and the American election (oh no).
- Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor
"I can't remember whether he is an incompetent moron, or an incorrigible POV warrior, or some other thing, but either way, to hell with him."
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
[edit]- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
ANI (but probably not the one you're thinking of), bias and bans, crisis and Clover, Engelhorn's euros, and will the zoomers inherit the project?
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
In response to a takedown request, Wikipedia editors reached a consensus on how to handle it appropriately.
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
User Hawkeye7 opens up on his experience as a media representative following the Australian team at the latest Summer Paralympics in Paris.
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
User asilvering reflects on their recent successful request for adminship.
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
More changes to RfA on the way in October, final results for the U4C elections revealed, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?
Picture this: medicine, drugs, JFK, Cleopatra, anachronism, and global catastrophe.
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
And other recent research publications.
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Band reunions and Beetlejuice!
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
[edit]- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
Find more about the new Trustees, the first election cycle for admins, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
And other searchings and findings.
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
Perplexing persistence, pay to play, potential president's possible plagiarism, crossword crossover to culture, and a wish come true!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
Can it be fun to address systemic bias? Eighty participants say yes, it can!
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
Help me make it through the night!
- Book review: The Editors
A novel about us, from the point of view of three of us.
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
Where do I even start?
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
Pasta, acronyms, and one computer-crashing talk page.
Am I crazy?!
[edit]Hello Springee, I feel comfortable sharing my thoughts about the GSL discussions with you, as you are much more experienced here and can likely help me put things into context. Please refer to my last comment regarding this here.
Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable not to adopt a new title for the GSL page or to maintain the current status quo? I understand that I am just one editor, and that no article or article title needs to meet my individual standards, but I genuinely struggle to see why my comments or points arenât blatantly obvious to everyone else. What am I missing here? Fenharrow (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry Fenharrow, I've been offline for a few days. I think your POV is quite reasonable. An issue with Wikipedia, and something we just need to work around, is that numbers are often more important that what we feel is the best argument. That isn't to say that quality of argument means nothing but absent some sort of agreed mediator we often are stuck with numbers on the talk page. I've seen cases where the small talk page consensus (say 3 vs 1) becomes a clear consensus in favor of the "1" after a RfC. Other times we are stuck trying to realize where the limits are (it seems getting consensus to move this article isn't happening right now). So the options are trying to make a case at a notice board where more uninvolved editors can weigh in, or work within the current article structure to try to fix things as much as possible. It can be frustrating and if you need to, take a break or just post agreements with the editors with whom you do agree. Remember that the other side might be feeling the same way and we should try to keep all the replies about the issues at hand. BTW, I do think it's reasonable to say how a new bit of text might be viewed by a reader. "A reader is likely to view that as biased because..." For what it's worth, a lot of changes have been made to the article of late but I'm not sure I've seen a true consensus for many of them, especially the removal of "political term" from the opening of the lead. Springee (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! It's great to hear from you, Springee! Ideally, I would start an RM seeking "Private Sale Exemption" (PSE), but has that ship sailed already? Interestingly, some editors who opposed the previous RMs seem to agree that PSE and GSL are "largely synonymous". Allowing the article to remain as GSL feels like a disservice to anyone on Wikipedia seeking to learn about the subject. I would like to challenge the page title. When do you think would be a suitable time to do that? Alternatively, merging GSL with "Gun Shows in the United States" also seems to work. Please share your thoughts! Fenharrow (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
[edit]- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
But not everybody is able to legally read Wikipedia, and not everybody is able to legally edit Wikipedia.
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?
Defamation, privacy, censorship, and elections.
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
Plus human knowledge and Ozzie places!
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
Asian News International, the Delhi High Court, and the encyclopedia.
- Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them
Your photos are more valuable than you may realize.
- In focus: Questions and answers about the court case
What is going on?
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
And Tata too!
- Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK
IP address privacy tools, and mysterious archive sites.
- Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong
Many such cases.
Template: Conservatism in the US on Southern strategy
[edit]I'm responding to your reply here, because by misrepresenting my position (unintentionally or not), and then pointing to "my efforts", it seems to have become more personal in nature.
"I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You said "we are talking about a simple template". If that is all this is why put so much effort to justify inclusion?
- Framing my questions and comments as "putting so much effort to justify" puts the focus on me, not on the discussion or the arguments at hand. Conversely, it also conveniently ignores the "effort" you've also put in thus far.
- I am required to assume good faith, but I'm concerned with the timing in which you decided to to remove Southern Strategy from the history section on the WP:NAVBOX at Template:Conservatism US.
- With all due respect the timing of your edit on the template, in combination with the recent turn in the discussion raises serious concerns that I am under no obligation to deal with.
- As a result, I will no longer be participating in that discussion, and I will let Biohistorian15 decide if they wish to continue.
Best of luck to you both.
Cheers. DN (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases
Many cases: many such cases.
- In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names
Publisher versus intermediary, bias versus verifiability, and probing questions about Gwern's personal finances.
- Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"
And other recent publications.
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023â2024
An overview of the finances and an explanation of what the numbers mean.
- Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college
It's so over.
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened
[edit]You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust đŹ 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates
[edit]You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA
. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk ⢠he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 December 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes
New arbs to be seated in January.
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5
Will the fifth try at achieving peace be a mudfight, or something better?
- Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited
Should old acquaintance be forgot?
- Op-ed: On the backrooms
An editor's reflection on social capital and their changing relationship with Wikipedia culture. by Tamzin
- In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?
Wikipedia aims to represent the sum of all knowledge. Is there an imbalance between Western countries and the rest of the world.
- In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial
Ballooning British bias bombast!
- Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody
Fighting and killing â on screen, in politics, and in the ring â competes for attention with Disney.
- Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
The importance of feedback.
Happy Holidays
[edit]
|
|
|
The 12 Days of Wikipedia
|
The Signpost: 24 December 2024
[edit]- News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"
What the VLOP â findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Wikipedia. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Wikipedia world.
- Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything
A personal essay.
- Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject
Explanations for what led to it and what it was like to undergo it.
- In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case
Plus, the dangers of editing, Morrissey's page gets marred, COVID coverage critique, Kimchi consultation, kids' connectivity curtailed, centenarian Claudia, Christmas cramming, and more.
- From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?
Who's news?
- Recent research: "Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality
And other new research findings.
- Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Wikipedia article intensifies
Good faith edits REVERTED and accounts BLOCKED.
- Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols
Peace on earth, goodwill to all!
- Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Wicked war, martial law, killing, death and an Indian movie with a new chess champ!
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
[edit]- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
The 20th anniversary of The Signpost.
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
A lot of psephology!
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
HUMINT or humbug?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
Hallelujah!
- Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia
Johnny Au has edited for 17 years straight without missing a day.
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
Some thoughts from the original editor-in-chief.
- News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free
Public Domain Day 2025, Women in Red hits 20% biography milestone, Spanish Wikipedia reaches two million articles, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
The Signpost staff on achievements of '24 and hopes for '25.
- Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia
The latest crusade?
- In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?
Our alumni speak!
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
Applying the scientific method to a model of conflict that leads to arbitration.
- Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
This post fact-checked by real Wikipedian patriots.
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
- AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
- Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
- WP:Contentious topics/ArabâIsraeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/ArabâIsraeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:
Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
- Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
- The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
- The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
- Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
- Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
|
|---|
|
- If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust đŹ 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
[edit]- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
But an open language model is ready to help.
- News and notes: Let's talk!
The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's CafĂŠ, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
Editor Fathoms Below reminisces over their successful RfA from February 2024.
- In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk
Plus, reports on the ARBPIA5 case, new concerns over projects targeting Wikipedia editors, John Green gets his sponsor flowers, and other news.
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
Ending with some bans, and a new set of editing sanctions.
- Traffic report: A wild drive
The start of the year was filled with a few unfortunate losses, tragic disasters, emerging tech forces and A LOT of politics.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
AE
[edit]I appreciate you trying to help, but minds appear to be set. There's not really been any response to my attempts to make my case, so it's probably wasting your time, unfortunately. Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you for your support and advice. Unfortunately, attitudes like yours seem to be fatally outnumbered on the English Wikipedia at this point. Being indefinitely banned from discussing the politics of my own country is absurd and the final straw for me after that first ridiculous sockpuppetry block. I have no interest in contributing to a project that has allowed its administrative culture to deteriorate to this level.
Good luck out there. Happy editing. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Request for review of RfC closure and un-closure. guninvalid (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Do you know what this guy is talking about.....
[edit]......with this edit? [6]
He indicates you do. Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I presume this [7]. I wouldn't view them as the same as I think TN's behavior was minor at worst while the other has a long history of failing to engage in good faith when challenged. However, I presume, since they are often on the majority side in many of the political debates their actions aren't seen as going against the stream thus more latitude is given. Springee (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with you that those two situations are not comparable.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons
French Wikipedia defends a user against public threats, steward elections, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
"The only time I ever took photos in my entire life".
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running â in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
- In the media: The end of the world
Or just the end of Wikipedia as we know it?
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
Of "hunters", "busybodies" and "dancers".
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
What are they? Why are they important? How can we make them better? And what can you do to help?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
LibertĂŠ, libertĂŠ chĂŠrie.
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
Grammys, politics and the Super Bowl.
- Essay: The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source
Straight from the source's mouth. A source is a source, of course, of course!
- Obituary: ĂmĂźt ĂÄąnar (Kmoksy) and VinĂcius Medina Kern (Vmkern)
Turkish linguist wrote about languages and plants; Brazilian informaticist studied Wikimedia projects and education.
The Signpost: 22 March 2025
[edit]- From the editor: Hanami
It's an ecstasy, my spring.
- Opinion: Talking about governments editing Wikipedia
Let them know what you think!
- News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia
Read this, then forget all about it.
- In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual
Life on the Wiki as usual!
- Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?
And WMF invites multi-year research fund proposals
- Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...
The Oscars, politics, and death elbow for the most attention.
- Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!
The photographers are the celebrities!
- Essay: Unusual biographical images
And very unusual biographical images.
- Obituary: Rest in peace
Send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Thank you
[edit]Looks like I'm likely headed for getting banned. It was a nice run of almost 20 years on this site. Thank you for being the sole person to stand up and not jump on the bandwagon. I hope this type of culture on the internet can be improved in the future. I hope you have a great day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 April 2025
[edit]- Special report: Wikipedian and physician Ziyad al-Sufiani reportedly released from Saudi prison
Fellow doctor Osama Khalid remains behind bars for "violating public morals" by editing.
- In focus: WMF to explore "common standards" for NPOV policies; implications for project autonomy remain unclear
Major changes to core content policy, or still-developing plan for new initiative?
- In the media: Indian judges demand removal of content critical of Asian News International
Defeat, or just a setback?
- News and notes: 35,000 user accounts compromised, locked in attempted credential-stuffing attack
Plus: 30-year anniversary of wiki software commemorated.
- Op-ed: How crawlers impact the operations of the Wikimedia projects
Our content is free, our infrastructure is not!
- Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas
What is to be done?
- Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing
Advice to aspirants: "Read RfA debriefs", including this one.
- Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PaweĹMM
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go...
Snow White sinking, Adolescence soaring, spacefarers stranded, this list has it all!
- News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipediaâs neutral point of view
The Wikimedia Foundation's announcement from Diff.
- Comix: Thirteen
Gadzooks!
The Signpost: 1 May 2025
[edit]- News and notes: India cut off from Wiki money; WMF annual plan and Wikimedia programs seek comment
As always, Wikimedia community governance relies on user participation; plus, more updates from the Wikimedia world
- In the media: Feds aiming for WMF's nonprofit status
Scrapers, an Indian lawsuit, and a crash-or-not-crash?
- Recent research: How readers use Wikipedia health content; Scholars generally happy with how their papers are cited on Wikipedia
And other new research findings.
- Arbitration report: Sysop Tinucherian removed and admonished by the ArbCom
And don't bite those newbies!
- Discussion report: Latest news from Centralized discussions
And don't bite those newbies!
- Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
Television dramas, televised sports, film, the Pope, and ... bioengineering at the top of the list?
- Disinformation report: At WikiCredCon, Wikipedia editors and Internet Archive discuss threats to trust in media
Community volunteers network among themselves and use technology to counter attacks on information sharing.
- News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan
A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (JulyâDecember 2024).
- Humour: Crisis erupts as furious admins, functionaries complain about crappy t-shirts
Hey! At least it is something!
- Comix: By territory
Zounds!
- In focus: Using AI on the Russian Wikipedia: opportunities or challenges?
Would a billion articles be a good idea?
- Community view: A deep dive into Wikimedia
There's a lot more to this than you think.
- Debriefing: Barkeep49's RfB debriefing
I wonder about having crats, but decided to become one anyway.
- Gallery: Meet the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024
Just beautiful photos!
- Obituary: JarrahTree, JohnClarknew and Yashthepunisher
Rest in Paradise.
The Signpost: 14 May 2025
[edit]- News and notes: WMF to kick off new-CEO quest as Iskander preps to move on â Supreme Court nixes gag of Wiki page for other India court row on ANI â code-heads give fix-up date for Charts in lieu of long-dead Graph gizmo
And comment is requested on a privacy whitepaper.
- In the media: Wikimedia Foundation sues over UK government decision that might require identity verification of editors worldwide
And other courtroom drama.
- Disinformation report: What does Jay-Z know about Wikipedia?
And how he knows it: all about lawyer letters and editing logs.
- In focus: On the hunt for sources: Swedish AfD discussions
Why the language barrier is not the only impediment to navigating sources from another culture.
- Technology report: WMF introduces unique but privacy-preserving browser cookie
And QR codes for every page!
- Debriefing: Goldsztajn's RfA debriefing
When an editor is ready to become staff at a public library (not a brother in a fraternity).
- Obituary: Max Lum (User:ICOHBuzz)
Rest in peace.
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 2)
The technology behind it, and the other stuff.
- Comix: Collection
Gadzooks!
- From the archives: Humor from the Archives
And more.
Arbcom notice
[edit]You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Raladic (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you have a history with @Simonm223?
[edit]He comes across on his talk page as an argumentative, know-nothing loser. I can see why a site like Wikipedia wants to keep nameless, unaccountable editors from citing primary sources too freely, but I do not think we have that luxury when writing about politics. @Simonm223 has taken it upon himself to defend editors who have undone my contributions to our article on Zohran Mamdani, all for vague and contradictory reasons.
Note that I mistake Mamdani's pledge for rent stabilisation with rent control, and cutting my additions for this reason would have made sense. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see you are a relatively new editor so I will offer a suggestion. First, please don't edit war. I get that it's frustrating to think you have improved an article only to have someone revert the changes. However, it's almost never a good idea to quickly revert the reversion. Instead, please use the talk page. Sometimes no consensus will result but other times the discussion results in something better due to the combined efforts. Second, please don't personally attack editors or suggest motives other than good faith intent to improve articles. Even in really contentious areas like topics around the middle east opposing editors can both honestly think they are improving an article. Personal attacks, dismissive tone etc tends to make it harder, not easier to fix these issues. Don't worry about this too much. If you can make a good case on the talk page, people may listen. Springee (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- When you went to school, did other children punch you in the head and tell the teacher you started fights? Giving criticism without the customary "here's what I would do instead" does not foster a culture of learning and drives away good, hard-working, deserving people. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's understandable. Many long term editors have seen so many new editors make POV edits and after a while there is a risk of biting the new guy. Simon gave you good advice, go to the talk page. Simon's use of the edit warring template is pretty standard and they didn't discount the content you were trying to post. Springee (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your point, but three editors besides Simon have reverted my edits. I have reached out to two of them on their talk pages, and they have not replied yet. I take offense first to Simon declaring an edit war on an article that they admit they have no interest in and taking it upon themselves to mediate it; and second, to not even give the busy people who disagreed with me a chance to speak up for themselves.
- Wikipedia may have a tame, civilised culture for an Internet forum, but if I were king, we would have this conversation on a mailing list and stand by our real names and personal e-mail addresses. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you are still interested in the edit/topic I would suggest starting a talk page discussion and be sure to focus on the content. Don't get hung up on the reverts. Make a case why you think the material should be in the article and listen the replies. Sometimes the issue is a source problem. Other times it could be the material doesn't work well in the article. If people give you links to policies or guidelines, read them. This doesn't mean you will convince them but it does mean you will learn how things work which makes it more likely you will succeed with edits in the future. Finally, it's not uncommon for editors to take action if they see an issue even on an article they don't normally edit. Springee (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thank makes a lot more sense. Thank you for saving my veal hide today. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you are still interested in the edit/topic I would suggest starting a talk page discussion and be sure to focus on the content. Don't get hung up on the reverts. Make a case why you think the material should be in the article and listen the replies. Sometimes the issue is a source problem. Other times it could be the material doesn't work well in the article. If people give you links to policies or guidelines, read them. This doesn't mean you will convince them but it does mean you will learn how things work which makes it more likely you will succeed with edits in the future. Finally, it's not uncommon for editors to take action if they see an issue even on an article they don't normally edit. Springee (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's understandable. Many long term editors have seen so many new editors make POV edits and after a while there is a risk of biting the new guy. Simon gave you good advice, go to the talk page. Simon's use of the edit warring template is pretty standard and they didn't discount the content you were trying to post. Springee (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- After re-reading my earlier comment I want to make it clear that "Don't worry about this too much." is in reference to editors reverting your comment and another editor posting on your talk page. You, Shushi, are new and sometimes it's not obvious that an edit that is reverted doesn't mean there is no common ground. Do take the part about no personal attacks seriously. Editors who have made lots of solid contributions to Wikipedia have been shown the door for such comments. Springee (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- When you went to school, did other children punch you in the head and tell the teacher you started fights? Giving criticism without the customary "here's what I would do instead" does not foster a culture of learning and drives away good, hard-working, deserving people. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Shushimnotrealstooge, I would heavily encourage you to take onboard Springee's advice. Consider this your only warning about calling other editors "argumentative, know-nothing loser". If I see it again you will be the subject of a noticeboard discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 04:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- While Springee and I often disagree on most things we've been able to navigate those disagreements within the framework of Wikipedia for a couple of decades now. And if you are going to talk about a person behind their backs please don't tag rhem. LOL
- I don't have a strong personal stake in the New York mayoral election but I do have strong views on reliable sourcing in articles relating to living people. We should not be sourcing policy platform statements of living politicians to the websites of their competitors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 in fairness I think your comment should be directed at shushi. TarnishedPathtalk 13:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That dang nesting thing :D Springee (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. Pre-coffee notif stuff. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That dang nesting thing :D Springee (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Again â what right do you have to oversee editors working on a Wikipedia article that you do not even have a personal interest in? I live in New York. Copying over what friendly papers say about politicians without putting it a broader context is lying by omission at best and defamatory and criminal at worst.
- Of course, I won't touch the Mamdani article again because I'd still like to work on this website, but I have strong views too. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Mate you need to tone it down. I don't care if you're new or not, this isn't twitter. TarnishedPathtalk 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to not tagging the people you are talking about, Shush, you might want to bear in mind that most user talk pages have acquired watchers. Springee has 107 people watching. I forget why I am one of them, but here I am. So your private word could potentially be read by a lot of people. We do give latitude to new editors, and this all seems pretty amicable, but do take it as a learning experience. All of Wikipedia is a public space, and it really is better not to air grievances about editors. At all. Sirfurboyđ (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 in fairness I think your comment should be directed at shushi. TarnishedPathtalk 13:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 June 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!
Admins arrested in Belarus.
- In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion
Pardon our alliteration!
- Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?
A get-out-of-jail card!
- Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians
And other new research publications.
- Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past
Holy men and not-as-holy movies.
- News from Diff: Call for candidates is now open: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!
- Opinion: Russian Wiki-fork flails, failing readers and editors
After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.
- Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA2 debriefing
With some sweet-and-sour sauce!
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)
Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?
- Comix: Hamburgers
Egad!
The Signpost: 18 July 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Is no WikiNews good WikiNews? â Election season returns!
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
- In the media: How bad (or good) is Wikipedia?
And how do we know?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Medicine reaches milestone of zero unreferenced articles
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
- In focus: Wikimania 2025: Connecting Wikimedians across the world for 20 years
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
- Recent research: Knowledge manipulation on Russia's Wikipedia fork; Marxist critique of Wikidata license; call to analyze power relations of Wikipedia
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
- News from the WMF: Form 990 released for the Wikimedia Foundationâs fiscal year 2023-2024
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
- Discussion report: Six thousand noticeboard discussions in 2025 electrically winnowed down to a hundred
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
- Comix: Divorce
Drawn this century!
- Opinion: Women are somewhat under-represented on the English-language Wikipedia, and other observations from analysis
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
- Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 4): The Future Of Wikimedia and Conclusion
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
- Obituary: Pvmoutside, Atomicjohn, Rdmoore6, Jaknouse, Morven, Martin of Sheffield, MarnetteD, Herewhy, BabelStone
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: God only knows
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
- Humour: New forum created for people who don't care about Wikipedia
If you are too blasĂŠ for Mr. BlasĂŠ and don't give a FAC.
Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened
[edit]You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust đŹ) 06:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 August 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Court order snips out part of Wikipedia article, editors debate whether to frame shreds or pulp them
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
- Discussion report: News from ANI, AN, RSN, BLPN, ELN, FTN, and NPOVN
A review of June, July and August.
- Disinformation report: The article in the most languages
Who is this guy?
- Community view: News from the Villages Pump
Threads since June.
- In the media: Disgrace, dive bars, deceased despots, and diverse dispatches
And slop.
- Crossword: Accidental typography
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
- Comix: best-laid schemes o' wikis an' men
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
- Traffic report: I'm not the antichrist or the Superman
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
ANI Notice
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 September 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation loses a round in court
UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.
- In the media: Congress probes, mayor whitewashed, AI stinks
Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!
- Disinformation report: A guide for Congress
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
- Recent research: Minority-language Wikipedias, and Wikidata for botanists
And other new research findings.
- Technology report: A new way to read Wikisource
Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.
- Traffic report: Check out some new Weapons, weapon of choice
With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.
- Essay: The one question
It's an easy one.
The Signpost: 2 October 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Larry Sanger returns with "Nine Theses on Wikipedia"; WMF publishes transparency report
This time "not merely negative".
- In the media: Extraordinary eruption of "EVIL" explained
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
- Disinformation report: Emails from a paid editing client
Unexpected news!
- Discussion report: Sourcing, conduct, policy and LLMs: another 1,339 threads analyzed
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
- Community view: The pressing questions of the modern WWW, as seen from the Village Pump
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia a merchant of (non-)doubt for glyphosate?; eight projects awarded Wikimedia Research Fund grants
And other recent publications.
- Opinion: Some disputes aren't worth it
When to walk away.
- Obituary: Michael Q. Schmidt
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: Death, hear me call your name
Celebrities, deaths and software.
- Comix: A grand spectacle
All invited!
Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted
[edit]You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk ⢠he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Springee, I'd like to let you know that I've added a finding of fact concerning your conduct to the proposed decision. You're welcome to respond to it in your section on talk. theleekycauldron (talk ⢠she/her) 02:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I don't understand why this was added. If you look at many of my ANI and ARE comments I frequently suggest we don't go too hard on people. See my reply to a request to ban Horse Eye's Back [8] (due to suppressed edits I can't show my original oppose edit dated 23:18, 14 August 2025). Here I'm opposing sanctions against user Lover of lgbt literature [9]. Here I'm defending Loki from accusations of bad behavior [10] and earlier this year complementing them on being, in my view principled even when if I don't agree with them. See my feedback to Loki here [11]. This is another example where I'm arguing to support an editor with whom I've disagreed on content "Gender-related_topics" (The inline quote results in the blue text). In this ANI I oppose a tban on an editor with whom I've had several negative interactions but I don't think a tban is warranted[12]. Here I'm arguing that a comment made by an editor with whom I've disagreed on talk pages shouldn't be viewed as violating a tban [13]. Here I'm taking the unpopular path and defending Roxy the dog [14]. Again, I was in the minority and they were cbanned[15]. I certainly don't like seeing bad behavior from editors but I also don't like seeing different view points being pushed out. I think my general aversion to tbans and in particular cbans is reasonably consistent. Springee (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Springee, I definitely agree that your participation in the process isn't partisan, you do just have a general reticence towards sanctions â but there's still an expectation that when someone is espousing hateful rhetoric, you don't impede the project from taking preventative measures. I'm not saying you can't be largely against sanctions, but in your comments at ANI and AE, you put editors' actions in the field of "things that can reasonably be debated" when those things are transphobia, bigotry pointed directly at other editors, and BLP violations. That said, I appreciate the nonpartisan nature of your participation and I'll adjust the FoF/remedies accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk ⢠she/her) 04:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I don't understand why this was added. If you look at many of my ANI and ARE comments I frequently suggest we don't go too hard on people. See my reply to a request to ban Horse Eye's Back [8] (due to suppressed edits I can't show my original oppose edit dated 23:18, 14 August 2025). Here I'm opposing sanctions against user Lover of lgbt literature [9]. Here I'm defending Loki from accusations of bad behavior [10] and earlier this year complementing them on being, in my view principled even when if I don't agree with them. See my feedback to Loki here [11]. This is another example where I'm arguing to support an editor with whom I've disagreed on content "Gender-related_topics" (The inline quote results in the blue text). In this ANI I oppose a tban on an editor with whom I've had several negative interactions but I don't think a tban is warranted[12]. Here I'm arguing that a comment made by an editor with whom I've disagreed on talk pages shouldn't be viewed as violating a tban [13]. Here I'm taking the unpopular path and defending Roxy the dog [14]. Again, I was in the minority and they were cbanned[15]. I certainly don't like seeing bad behavior from editors but I also don't like seeing different view points being pushed out. I think my general aversion to tbans and in particular cbans is reasonably consistent. Springee (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Springee
[edit]You admit that I removed a TPO violation and yet you go on and on, disrupting a possible discussion, trying to blame me for something. Had you not done this, there could have been a discussion that did not start with a disgusting, insulting, rant by the OP. I did them a large favor by giving them a second chance at starting a discussion and did not violate any policy in doing so. They admitted their post was flawed and started again. Enough. Your posts are simply disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't agree it was a TPO violation and a "flawed" post isn't the same thing as one that should be removed. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this, only suggesting that it wasn't the correct way to address the issue. You felt the post had an issue and you should have raised the concern vs just blank the post. Springee (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 October 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Board shuffles, LLM blocks increase, IPs are going away
And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges.
- Special report: The election that isn't
Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.
- Interview: The BoT bump
Who was bumped and why?
- In the media: An incident at WikiConference North America; WMF reports AI-related traffic drop and explains Wikipedia to US conservatives
...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia".
- Traffic report: One click after another
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
- Humour: Wikipedia pay rates
Don't get too excited before you read this.
An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area, users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. (See details.)
- An uninvolved administrator may restrict participation in an arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) noticeboard thread to certain users. (See details.)
- Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
- Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Colin, Samuelshraga, Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed.
- Colin and Samuelshraga are admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.
- Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
- Aaron Liu is reminded to avoid bludgeoning discussions.
- These site bans and topic bans may be appealed twelve months after this announcement, and every twelve months thereafter.
For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust đŹ) 02:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed
The Signpost: 10 November 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Temporary accounts go live and WMF board member self-suspends
ArbCom elections draw close, and Wikimania '27 in Santiago.
- Community view: Six Wikipedians' thoughts on Grokipedia, and the humanity of it all
It ain't a five course meal, according to one of our interviewees.
- Wikicup report: BeanieFan11, WikiCup victor of 2025, covers the results
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
- In the media: Jimbo's book, an argument about genocide, and a train of shame
Wikipedia's new rival, political controversy in Italy and other Wiki-reports.
- Recent research: Taking stock of the 2024â2025 research grants
$400,000 USD in total funding: what did we get?
- Opinion: With Grokipedia, top-down control of knowledge is new again
Does it shed any light on particular topics that are better suited to LLM-generation than others?
- Obituary: Struway
Rest in peace.
- Traffic report: The documentaried, the disowned, the deceased, Diwali and the Dodgers
You know your man is working hard, he's worth a deuce.
- Comix: Head of steam
'Sblood!
BBC RfC
[edit]Please restore the close. There was no reasonn to unilaterally undo it without first consulting the closer. The SNOW close was correct. â"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 13:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I second this; Springee, if you want the RfC reopened, especially when that decisive, please ask first before re-opening next time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything bad about the RfC and it is good to leave these things open for at least 24hr. Additionally, the editor who closed the RfC has limited experience and did so unilaterally. There is no harm in getting more input even if the final outcome is likely unchanged. Springee (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- The comment I made was more about asking to re-open first, but I'm not necessarily against keeping the RfC open for at least 24 hours or so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Communitynotes just closed it AGAIN!!!!!!Jp33442 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)- Not quite, I removed a comment made after the close.[16] CNC (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Opps i stand corrected my apologies will get rid of my comment Jp33442 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not quite, I removed a comment made after the close.[16] CNC (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- The comment I made was more about asking to re-open first, but I'm not necessarily against keeping the RfC open for at least 24 hours or so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see anything bad about the RfC and it is good to leave these things open for at least 24hr. Additionally, the editor who closed the RfC has limited experience and did so unilaterally. There is no harm in getting more input even if the final outcome is likely unchanged. Springee (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee I understand the need to reply to someone after a discussion is closed, but this is what user talk pages are for afterall.[17] Your comment might otherwise seem insignificant to the close itself (ie, not contradicting it), but comments should never be added after a discussion has been archived, period. CNC (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the RfC should have been closed at all. That said, I've address my comment outside of the close so that it stays with the discussion. I agree with what you are saying when we have an admin close or a close after the RfC has expired. When the close is just a regular editor action a revert should be sufficient (kind of a BRD things). Once the close has been challenged via a revert it shouldn't have been reclosed without some discussion. That however wasn't the fault of the original closer. Springee (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I was only addressing the comment you left inside the close that I reverted, also because you did this before and it was reverted by Rambling Rambler for the same reason.[18] Just surprised this happened again. If you want to revert the close then revert the close, but please don't go adding extra comments into it basically. However given you'd already reverted one badnac, I'm not convinced you should be reverting the subsequent close. For reference I'm on the fence regarding whether it was a good close or not, I have my doubts. CNC (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert the close a second time but I would support it per my comments at RSN. Springee (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Have you thought of just proposing a summary update at Wikipedia talk:RSP? The summary there doesn't necessarily need to only be a summary of the close it can also be a summary of the discussion (we've done this by deciding on wording for different entries based on the discussions that took place). It might be worth it given it's the only RfC that has taken place regarding BBC (somewhat unnecessarily I would add), but now that it's happened it'd be useful to update that entry I think. Just my two cents anyway. CNC (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Springee already went to WP:AN, which can be found here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Have you thought of just proposing a summary update at Wikipedia talk:RSP? The summary there doesn't necessarily need to only be a summary of the close it can also be a summary of the discussion (we've done this by deciding on wording for different entries based on the discussions that took place). It might be worth it given it's the only RfC that has taken place regarding BBC (somewhat unnecessarily I would add), but now that it's happened it'd be useful to update that entry I think. Just my two cents anyway. CNC (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert the close a second time but I would support it per my comments at RSN. Springee (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I was only addressing the comment you left inside the close that I reverted, also because you did this before and it was reverted by Rambling Rambler for the same reason.[18] Just surprised this happened again. If you want to revert the close then revert the close, but please don't go adding extra comments into it basically. However given you'd already reverted one badnac, I'm not convinced you should be reverting the subsequent close. For reference I'm on the fence regarding whether it was a good close or not, I have my doubts. CNC (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the RfC should have been closed at all. That said, I've address my comment outside of the close so that it stays with the discussion. I agree with what you are saying when we have an admin close or a close after the RfC has expired. When the close is just a regular editor action a revert should be sufficient (kind of a BRD things). Once the close has been challenged via a revert it shouldn't have been reclosed without some discussion. That however wasn't the fault of the original closer. Springee (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Borderline topic-ban violation at NPOVN
[edit]Hey, just wanted to warn you that your participation at the NPOVN thread regarding potential COI w/r/t Elliott Broidy could be taken as a violation of your topic ban from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards
. I would recommend not participating further, and/or requesting a clarification at ARCA. While some NPOVN threads are not focused on user conduct per-se, this one seems to, with the editor opening the discussion even noting that they considered bringing it to other conduct boards but were uncertain where their concerns could best be reviewed and addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I wouldn't have thought that would have been close and I have asked about other areas [19]. Still, I don't want to flirt with the line and I have been meaning to ask. Springee (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be worthwhile to ask for clarification, because even beyond these two examples there's a lot of gray area that I could see people going either way on. FWIW, I agree with the recommendation you got on that other discussion, as it's clearly a meta-discussion of Wikipedia process that does not directly address any editor's conduct. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm drafting things now. I was going to ping you as part of the discussion just so you know. Springee (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be worthwhile to ask for clarification, because even beyond these two examples there's a lot of gray area that I could see people going either way on. FWIW, I agree with the recommendation you got on that other discussion, as it's clearly a meta-discussion of Wikipedia process that does not directly address any editor's conduct. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]Hi Springee, I don't know you too well, but we have worked together a few times before, for example in the far right article, or in the reliable sources noticeboard.
I've been thinking of creating a user group, and eventually a Wikiproject meant to ensure fairness on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining. So far, @Deamonpen said that they're interested in this idea, and you can find more about it on the discussion I've had with them. What do you think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 December 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Election cycles come and go, and Wikimedia Foundation achieves record revenue in 2024â2025!
Admin and ArbCom elections upcoming, BoT elects two new members, task force advises to close Wikinews and keep Wikispore, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
- In the media: Wales walk-off, antisemitism, supernatural powers, feminism turmoil, saints, and sex
Plus mammoth mummy sex-change operation completed!
- Recent research: At least 80 million inconsistent facts on Wikipedia â can AI help find them?
And other recent publications about contradictions and retractions.
- Disinformation report: Epstein email exchanges planned strategy, edits and reported progress
At work on Wikipedia whitewashing. How much should they be paid?
- Traffic report: It's a family affair
Even in these times there is something to be thankful for!
- Book review: The Seven Rules of Trust
Jimmy Wales and Dan Gardner write a book inspired by Wikipedia. What's in it?
- From the archives: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein ..."
The twists and turns of Epsteinâs portrayal on Wikipedia.
- Humour: An interview with Wikipe-tan
A conversation about being the mascot of Wikipedia.
- Opinion: AI finds errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles
Using ChatGPT to fact-check a month's worth of Today's featured articles.
- Serendipity: Highlights from the itWikiCon 2025
A recap of the latest convention of the Italian Wiki-community, held in Catania from 7â9 November.
- Comix: Madness
It could happen to anyone.