Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

User Page Privacy Concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been a bit hesitant to bring this up since it might exacerbate the issue I'm having, but when I first made my user page on Wikipedia in 2015, I included a lot of personal information about myself. Although I have long since removed the info from my user page, it still shows up in my user page history.

I was wondering if an admin could remove the earlier revisions containing my personal info, as I do have a lot of privacy concerns regarding this. Thanks!

--Dtale1984 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Did this, although it didn't contain a lot of private information IMO and I am hesitant to do a log redaction here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I only needed the earliest revision to be redacted honestly but I appreciate it nonetheless. Dtale1984 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Join the Community Resilience and Sustainability Conversation Hour with Maggie Dennis

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

The Community Resilience and Sustainability team at the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a conversation hour led by its Vice President Maggie Dennis.

Topics within scope for this call include Movement Strategy, Board Governance, Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Community Development, and Human Rights. Come with your questions and feedback, and let's talk! You can also send us your questions in advance.

The meeting will be on 24 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC (check your local time).

You can read details on Meta-wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is starting in 5 minutes and can be viewed live or later on YouTube. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition of "municipality"

Many editors, myself included, have spent a lot of time trying to make consistent the articles listing the cities, towns, villages, etc. of every state in the country (and of various other political entities around the world). One question has come up several times: how do we define "municipality"? We've settled on Lists of municipalities as a catch-all so we don't end up with separate lists for villages and cities in a state where the only legal difference is an arbitrary population cutoff. However, to that end we've been using "municipality" to mean "incorporated municipality", so as to exclude (and list separately) CDPs, civil townships, and the like. There seems to be a lot of agreement that this is good: we should list incorporated cities, towns, and villages, etc. separately from unincorporated CDPs and townships.

However, another possible definition of "municipality" is "a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction". One example of where this gets fuzzy is Michigan: Michigan only has two kinds of incorporated municipalities – cities and villages – but its unincorporated townships do have powers of self-government, and its unincorporated charter townships have even more self-government or jurisdiction. So should these be listed in a List of municipalities in Michigan? In other cases (see Wisconsin and South Dakota, both of which are still awaiting a merge) there is a consensus not to include civil townships, even if they have limited self-government.

As a further example, Vermont has 5 unincorporated towns, which are otherwise equivalent to the rest of the state's towns. Should these five towns be excluded from the list of municipalities because they aren't incorporated? If so, then shouldn't Michigan's townships be excluded from their list of municipalities? Is consistency even that important? Dylanvt (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Vermont's 5 unincorporated towns had their incorporation revoked by the state (for good reason, e.g. Glastenbury, Vermont has all of 9 residents). Townships generally shouldn't be included, I'd think, although I see Michigan has lumped together multiple survey townships into an organized township. Have you considered a population criterion, e.g. incorporated and having at least 2,000 residents (or 5,000, or 1,000, or 10,000, or ...)? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea behind these articles is to include all "municipalities" (in common language, towns and cities and villages etc.) in one place, because it's much more convenient to have them all in one place than in two or three separate articles. A cutoff wouldn't be great because some people may be looking for the smallest, rather than the largest, cities or towns in a state. There's just some grey area in several states that make 100% consistency difficult. But I don't know how much we should care about 100% consistency. Dylanvt (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Can someone authorized to close a "withdraw" request to delete a WP article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here [1] is the withdrawn Wikipedia page deletion request. Please, close this request. Thank you - --Ooligan (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page button

What happened to our talk page button? It displays the text ‘Fa tiban ka ho’! I hope someone fixes this. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī this sounds like a bad translation in the upstream interface translation files; they usually get updated every couple of weeks. If you use the "en - English" language setting in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal you should not see bad translations here. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I use en-GB in my preferences. Anyway, am I the only one who sees a different translation? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My initial thoughts were the same as User:Xaosflux's, but I use en-GB and have seen no problem. Can browser language settings influence this? I am using Firefox 98.0.1, also with en-GB. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth posting a link to this discussion at WP:VPT, as it seems to be a technical issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī and Phil Bridger: no need to put on VPT, there is nothing we can do about this here on the English Wikipedia - it has to be fixed on translatewiki, then you have to wait for any updates to sync to mediawiki and then back to us. They usually fix those on translatewiki pretty quick, then there is about a 10 day lead time. We discourage the use of en-GB here, for many reasons - this being one of them - if you insist on using en-GB, en-CA, or other en-XX variants you should expect oddities. If something extremely vulgar or severely disruptive is in one of these, please let us know at WP:IANB or WP:AN and we can put in temporary manual overrides - but we are not going to maintain those variants in general (we had an RfC about that last year I think). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for the tip! I edited my preferences to use en and now I see the usual text. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And thanks from me, as I was puzzled by this issue even though I wasn't suffering from it. I have no chauvinistic attachment to "en-GB", so have also changed my preference to "en". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Inqilābī and Phil Bridger good to hear! For the most part en-XX variant's in the interface are not really, we've been looking for some technical solutions for a long time to avoid this - but it requires a lot of upstream work. Changing your preference will have no impact at all on the text of articles or other content pages, and you are welcome to edit articles in whatever dialect is appropriate! Best regards — xaosflux ^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

en-GB is known to suck. That's really all there is to it. casualdejekyll 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Quarterly Community Safety survey

Apologies for cross-posting this, I wanted to make sure that as many people as possible knew this was going to happen, so people aren't surprised when it appears.

Starting the week of 28 March 2022, the Wikimedia Foundation will conduct a quarterly anonymous survey about safety perceptions among the English Wikipedia community members.

This survey responds to a Universal Code of Conduct community recommendation, and we encourage you to participate.

There are more details about the survey on the project page, and you can also leave comments.

Best regards, Community Safety Survey team –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:2450:82EA:FC8A:4EA1 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

“Sexual assault allegations vanished from potential Cori Bush challenger’s Wikipedia page”

Just wondering if any of you have seen this new front page article, it’s pretty concerning. https://theintercept.com/2022/03/21/missouri-senator-steven-roberts-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfecnot (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is exactly the sort of thing we'd never be able to catch once the WMF enables IP masking and adopts the UCoC (which prohibits discussing contributors' place of employment). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Targeting of Talk:Speech synthesis

Any conjectures on why Talk:Speech synthesis receives a particularly large number of drive-by additions of new sections, added by single-edit IP users, that consist of gibberish or sentence fragments in Indonesian or both? I'm particularly intrigued by the ones (in Indonesian) that translate to "salaam aleikum to all bus passengers from johor bahru to malacca will be departing soon we from larkin sentral would like to wish you a happy hari raya"[2], "Ayang beautiful there is a whatsapp from my handsome"[3], "Moskona you love but how come you're so naughty"[4], "Hi adam there's a whatsapp message coming in"[5], and "the child has a whatsapp entry from the girl"[6], covering a span of more than two months. Largoplazo (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There could be several reasons. I believe this belongs in VPT, perhaps tagged as a security issue, as one reason could be somebody is testing the waters for wider-scale disruption, but not necessarily targeting Wikipedia exclusively. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I was figuring there could be a bigger motive behind it, whether it's sending coded messages or something else, but I chose Miscellaneous because I wasn't sure of a more suitable forum. Largoplazo (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up: The talk page has been semi-protected. Largoplazo (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Those messages got me, they are a form of love-scam messages, that circulate in WhatsApp and other media. Those IP addrreses are from the spammers. Those are nothing but a disgusting attempt of spamming, not coded messages or something else. Report them and make the talk pages semi-protected. VScode fanboy (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Could be, but it may not. It could be something else masquerading as (relatively) harmless spamming. One example would be to prompt the defending entity into restricting access, which is a form of voluntary denial of service. Whether that is necessary or not, it is like doing the attackers' job for them. Or it could be a probe or test for something else. And of course it could be what it seems to be. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Question for a logo in Ukraine

On this page I discovered a logo combined the coat of arms of Ukraine and four fleurs-de-lis, who know about that? --Great Brightstar (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is the logo of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine. --Jayron32 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinions on the phenomenon some might call RfC-itis?

See heading. MarshallKe (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Vexing, when it happens in situations where common sense would have served just as well, or better. Also when it involves issues affecting a minority of editors, editors already being an insignificantly small minority of daily users. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you make a definition? As it currently stands it just seems like a vague negative term. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this meets a definition, but it describes the symptoms. An editor, sometimes experienced, sometimes not, opens an RfC seemingly at odds with the expectations of other editors that were already present on the article's talk page. The editor filing usually has ignored or is unaware of WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNOT. Particularly egregious examples may have poorly worded, non-neutral questions. Depending on how contentious the underlying topic is, such an RfC will very likely have examples of WP:BLUDGEON behaviour. If editors are truly lucky, some sort of useful consensus can be achieved through this, though getting to it can be tedious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth making an essay about. By the way, I started my own RFC. See above. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:25E9:7819:F430:D78 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hannover Medical School

In reading about Ursula von der Leyen, I did a double-take on finding a linked article named Hannover Medical School. "Hannover" is the German spelling of the city known in English as "Hanover". Does it make any sense for the English language WP to name an article partly in German and partly in English? This would be like naming an article Bayerisch football derbies or whatever, in the many articles about Bavarian entities.

The opening of the article says "The Hannover Medical School (German: Medizinische Hochschule Hannover ... is a university medical centre in the city of Hanover, in Germany, part of a regional medical network," and thereafter in the text the German spelling Hannover is consistently used. The talk page contains only one untitled, undated and unsigned [2007, anon IP] entry; and most edits to the article are made by either IPs or bots, with no named active user having made more than a single edit. Thus there's really no one to ask or discuss the question with.

I try to limit my own edits mostly to spelling, grammar, and adding links where it seems useful, or occasionally rephrasing a confusing sentence. In any event I'm not about to repeat my tyro mistake of moving an article - although if someone else agrees and moves it from "Hannover" to "Hanover", I would happily change the spellings in the text. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This does seem to be the version of the name used in English-language German sources, although they more commonly use just "MHH" - see https://www.hannover.de/en/Science-Education/Hannover-Science-Initiative/Universities/Hannover-Medical-School and https://www.uni-hannover.de/en/forschung/strategische-kooperationen/mhh/ as examples. As long as we have a redirect from Hanover Medical School, which we do, I think all is well. PamD 12:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've come across a similar problem with another German institution where our title is not a literal translation into English but is the English-language version used by the institution itself, but can't remember where it was. I've added a note to the article to explain the title. PamD 13:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Pam; your thoughtful edits entirely solve the issue. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Desktop Improvements: project update and invitation to our office hours

Main page: WP:VPT#Desktop Improvements: project update and invitation to our office hours

Hey, if you don't watch the technical section you may accidentally ignore an important message you perhaps would prefer not to ignore, so this is like a redirect within the VP to increase the visibility.

I'm writing on behalf of a Wikimedia Foundation team working on the new desktop interface. We're building the last features now. In a few months, we'll complete the project. We've prepared the last (fourth) prototype with improvements to the sidebar and page tools menu (aka More menu). This prototype is for you to check out and share feedback. On Tuesday, March 29, 19:00 18:00 UTC, we're having a meeting for anyone interested in the project. Read more on VP (technical) and see you on Tuesday. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm always leery of interface changes. I have used five different desktop monitors, no two of which are the same dimensions horizontally or vertically; and I still now use two of these, which are different sizes and shapes. So far I have not experienced any difficulty with Wikipedia displaying properly on any of these monitors, and I hope your team will ensure that such flexibility will continue. Some other websites appear to be locked into a specific display shape, causing very annoying problems. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Milkunderwood for this comment. Would you be able to join the office hours and talk with us about that? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

• Muslims and
• Muslim world

and provide your inputs @

• Talk:Muslims#Requesting inputs and
• Talk:Muslim world#Requesting inputs

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2022 ends soon

Feminism and Folklore 2022 which is an international writing contest organized at Wikipedia ends soon that is on 31 March 2022 11:59 UTC. This is the last chance of the year to write about feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics such as folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, fairy tales, folk plays, folk arts, folk religion, mythology, folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more

Keep an eye on the project page for declaration of Winners.

We look forward for your immense co-operation.

Thanks Wiki Loves Folklore international Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Community discussion regarding the Signpost

In a recent ANI thread, users disagreed on various issues related to the community magazine here on wiki. In light of this, various questions arise which I believe it would be beneficial for both the Signpost team, the community, and how the Signpost is portrayed in media for us to answer. Namely, these are:

1. What exactly is the role and/or purpose of the Signpost within Wikipedia?
2. What standards and policies is it expected to follow, especially regarding neutrality and opinions?
3. Are the current editorial policies and procedures of the Signpost adequate?

General comments on how to improve the signpost or its strengths are also welcome. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a discussion like this is much wider than the Signpost and should apply to any editorial made by any editor or group of editors. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is wider than that; if it is inappropriate for an editorial, it would be inappropriate for a user to express in general. BilledMammal (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ed6767 I think discussion should be kept constrained to the Signpost as much as possible for there to be any practical consensus. There are particular nuances relevant to the Signpost's unique position within the wikipedia community that also merit exploring and would be left to the side in such a general discussion, but if editors feel as a result of this discussion that a more broad conversation should be had I think that would be worth undertaking as a second step. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The signpost is just some users making their own newspaper. Who cares? Anyone can make their own "don't mention anything outside of Wikipedia" newspaper, and compete. A signpost article is no different than a statement on a userpage or a userbox. How about we just agree to not care unless it's polemic or actually disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"We stand with X" is polemic, for any value of X. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. "We stand with the pure, true X, because the Ys are nasty iditots" is a polemic. "We stand with X, despite its downsides, because we think that X is the lesser of the various bad options available right now" is not a polemic. Polemics are fundamentally aggressive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hair splitting. Wikipedia is the wrong venue on which to state stances of any kind. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see that this discussion was CENT-listed, and I have to say, I don't think it will be productive. The questions it asks are very broad and rather vague, so it won't help to have a ton of comment because there's nothing specific to !vote on. Further, it'd be better to hold this at the Signpost newsroom rather than here (or, worse, at ANI).

For what it's worth, as a Signpost contributor and a journalist, I think it was very misguided for the paper to publish an editorial titled "We stand in solidarity with Ukraine". I noticed it in draft form and thought to myself that it would likely be received poorly—my apologies to EpicPupper that I did not speak up before it went to press. I think appending a note to the piece retracting it or emphasizing that we remain neutral in conflicts would be an appropriate resolution; deletion, however, is not called for. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb's last sentence provides a good way forward.

I think that retraction would be best.However, if the article is not retracted, then the headline should be replaced with something neutral. Otherwise any statement of neutrality would be absurdly self-contradictory. (Banner "I back X" with small print "I'm neutral"). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Two points:

1. On real-world issues, the Signpost should uphold NPOV, just as it applies to articles. Otherwise the Signpost becomes a soapbox, as it did in this case, contrary to WP:SOAPBOX.
2. The Signpost appears to have had no policy or procedure for assessing whether to take an editorial stance, leading to 4 editors involved in this article speaking for the whole team on a silence=consent process. (At ANI, the article's author @EpicPupper has been commendably civil and helpful in describing the process involved. Thanks, Eric)
   I recommend that for any article purporting to speak on behalf of the whole team, the Signpost should require explicit consent of the whole team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I would like BHG (speaking as the editor who is most vehement about this issue, though not the starter of this discussion) to express which other BLUELINKS should apply to the Signpost or other non-article spaces. NPOV is explicitly about article content; but if we assume it should also apply to non-article content, does WP:OR and WP:V also apply? Is there something different about the Signpost than, say, this non-article page we are on right now, that demands that the Signpost say nothing non-neutral (or original research, or non-verifiable, etc.) but allows editors to talk all day at the Village Pump without citing their statements? --PresN 00:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: I see no merit in conflating an editorial statement by the community newsletter with a discussion between editors. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors talk all day at the Village Pump without citing their statements. XOR'easter (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer this discussion's question, however (unlike the other 2 venues this conversation is taking place in...):

1. The role is to be a newspaper. Its the opinions and statements of a handful of editors.
2. It must follow the standards that all non-article discussions and opinions are held to—NPOV has never been one of them, any more than it applies to user talk pages
3. Haha, funny... perhaps I'm misremembering the last years and years of the Signpost begging for editors to help out in both a contributing and managing role, and getting little response. I'm presuming no one here is volunteering to be the live-in censor. --PresN 00:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost is not in mainspace and should not be held to those standards. NPOV does not apply here. casualdejekyll 01:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand what the point of this or why this was added to WP:CENT. I'd suggest we close this down, close the ANI thread and count to ten. Calidum 01:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Y'know I had a whole response written out about editorial independence and norms for POV content outside mainspace, but then I was reminded of this remark from The Blade of the Northern Lights:

  "Our work together here should be our armor, not some sharp, angry, burning sword. I would strongly recommend that everyone here find an article to work on for a while; not the cliche "random article", but something that gives you a nice tug at the heartstrings. It feels great to be out there doing work on something you genuinely care about, and I assure you it'll help you regain the sense of why you're here."

  A number of users have that quote on their userpages, but I wonder how many remember the context in which TBotNL said that. I do, because I happen to have started the thread he said it in, concerning some projectspace drama du jour. TBotNL, who had been on a vacation from projectspace to focus exclusively on the article Genie (feral child), spoke in the context of what he'd learned from that experience, and how it put our petty squabbles in perspective. Well, I've been working lately on List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War—five civilian journalists killed in the line of duty since the full-scale invasion began, two Ukrainian, three international; plus two Ukrainian journalists killed going about their daily lives. And so nine years after TBotNL said that to me, I think I now get exactly what he meant. None of this arguing goes anywhere. It's just a wild goose chase entirely independent of actually improving this encyclopedia. This one fucking Signpost editorial is now the subject of an MfD, DRV, ANI, VPM, and Signpost talk thread, and people all seem more than happy to chip in and argue. Meanwhile Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has multiple redlinks on it, and List of people and organizations sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which I recently pared down to a readable condition, still needs a massive update to be brought in line with International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Spending five minutes on improving any article in that navbox will do much more good for the world than any projectspace argument will, and hopefully will help you regain the sense of why you're here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I remember writing that as well, it's good to see someone who was involved in that (and to be sure was not the source of the problem in that case) actually gets it as intended. Infighting like this is hard for me to watch, and I'd much rather people take out the frustration somewhere that would help; writing a proper encyclopedia article on such a fraught subject would be a valuable resource for people looking for good information, especially for those who aren't (like I am) somewhat well-versed in the history of the relations between Russia and Poland/Lithuania/Belarus/Western Ukraine. I'll help out where I can too, though others are definitely going to be better than me at content I know some good adminning has its part too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is not our place to tell an independent publication what they can and cannot print. No policies broken in any event. Close this stupid discussion. Schierbecker (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Schierbecker: It is not an independent publication, it is based on en.wp and as such it is operating within the same structural framework, policies and guidelines as the rest of the project. (This includes WP:AGF, something you may wish to re-acquaint yourself with.) If they want to be independent, then they should move elsewhere on the internet. Of course, that will mean paying for it themselves :D SN54129 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed the ANI thread (I have ANI watchlisted for keeping track of my own posting there, will likely remove it when that gets closed) and couldn't help but think that part of the issue here is that by default new editions of the Signpost appear at the top of editors watchlists. Sure, the Signpost is just a collection of editors posting what is in effect a very fancy essay on the state of Wikipedia every month, but it doesn't feel that way. If I'm a new editor, and I see a notification at the top of my watchlist like that (something otherwise only used for project wide issues like new admins or RfCs that would shift the functioning of the project), I'm going to assume that it has at least the tacit approval of "big Wikipedia". Now obviously more experienced editors who are more familiar with the Signpost and WMF will know they aren't related, but the Signpost certainly does very little to make it clear to the casual observer that it is unofficial. I think perhaps the Signpost could do with making it more clear it is an unoffical project, especially right now when it takes a very clear political stance. Even beyond just the editorial, nearly every item in the current edition of the Signpost is either pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, or both (especially the "war diary" republication, which IMO is much worse than the editorial and seemingly holds every piece of pro-Ukrainian disinformation that has come out of this war, as well as a heaping helping of anti-Russian racism). Now I don't think this (the Signpost taking a side, I have particular umbrage with some of the way they dd it) is a bad thing, but I simultaneously don't blame anyone who might look at the very official seeming Signpost and concludes "Wikipedia has taken a side!". BSMRD (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  nearly every item in the current edition of the Signpost is either pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, or both

  Now I don't think this [...] is a bad thing.

  An all-pervasive bias is not bad? Wow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PRJC Moxy- 04:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the Signpost as a unit taking a stance is inherently bad. I think they need to do a lot more to make clear they are a separate editor run entity not associated with the WMF. BSMRD (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  "An all-pervasive bias is not bad" Indeed, when the bias is being against a warmongering despot, that is a good thing. That's like crying WP:NPOV at the Wikipedia TOS for being pro-civility, being biased against harassment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The first sentence of WP:NPOV mentions encyclopedic content. That core content policy also mentions "article" and "articles" over 30 times. The policy never mentions talk pages or project space. This is in contrast to another really important policy, WP:BLP, which goes out of its way to say that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, without exception. Clearly, this editorial cannot be in violation of NPOV because that policy does not apply to The Signpost, or any other civil, non-disruptive expressions of reasonable opinion outside of encyclopedia articles. The OP and some other editors object to the phrase "stand in solidarity" in the headline but Solidarity is described in our own article as an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Wikipedia, after all, is written and maintained by a community of volunteers through a model of open collaboration and our goal is free educational content for all of humanity, including the residents of Ukraine and Russia. The actual content of the editorial seems perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's goals, and the body of the editorial was calling for improved coverage of Russia, Ukraine and the current war. How can any Wikipedian object to that? Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: imagine a Signpost editorial in 2003 headlined "We stand with Iraq", while that country was being invaded.

  How do you think that would have gone down? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, I have no idea because I did not start editing Wikipedia until 2009. I do know that Wikipedia's current coverage of that invasion of Iraq expresses solidarity with the people of Iraq by providing neutral, educational content about the horrors of that war. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Foundation cleary has a POV on this Wikimedia Foundation received a Russian government demand to remove content related to the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. so why can't a group of editors in project namespace? Moxy- 04:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Refuisng a request to remove info is a million miles from expressing explicit partisanship with one of the warring parties. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  The language is clear to most. Moxy- 05:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. It is very clear that the WMF statement does not express unequivocal blanket support for one party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Words are chosen for a reason Unprovoked...occurring without any identifiable cause or justification Moxy- 06:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Describing an attack as unprovoked is radically different to a declaration of support for the target.

  If someone was minded to say "X is a vile scumbag, but attack by Y was wholly unprovoked" then there would no logical inconsistency. We might vehemently disagree with the characterisation of X, but it is entirely possible to deplore X whilst opposing an attack. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, c'mon. We're not discussing encyclopedic coverage 19 years later; we are discussing explicit partisanship while the bombs are exploding.

  The mood in America at the time was to denounce and ostracise anyone who criticised the war. Most of our editors are American, and the result would have been howls outrage at Wikipedia backing "the enemy". Not universal outrage, but the heat would have been too intense to stand. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, you are trying to use a reverse crystal ball to predict an alternate history scenario from the past rather than the usual use of crystal balls to predict the future. What seems crystal clear to me is that your several forum shopping complaints are based on a complete misreading of WP:NPOV, and an attempt to apply that content policy to non-content areas of the encyclopedia. Policy is important. Misinterpretation of policy is a problem.Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I share the "reverse crystal ball" concern. I don't see how "Americans, during one of their most censorious periods in recent memory, would hypothetically have reacted with disproportionate rage to a hypothetical newspaper editorial that never actually existed" is much of an argument for, well, anything really. That's like saying, "If the Signpost had existed in 1945 and ran a 'we pray for peace' editorial after Hiroshima, people would have been upset." I mean, what of it? XOR'easter (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Straw man. The Signpost didn't publish a "we pray for peace" editorial It published a "we stand with X" editorial.

  But if you want to look forwards, then would you support a policy that the Signpost should publish op-eds by editors who want to express any POV, including e.g. unequivocal support for opponents of the USA?

  Or is partisanship acceptable only when it points in one direction? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem in principle with a staunchly anti-American op-ed, if the topic is germane to the goal of building an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article that was published is a blanket declaration of support for one side in armed conflict: We stand with Ukraine

  If the standard you want to apply is germane to the goal of building an encyclopedia, then please explain how blanket declaration of support for one side in armed conflict is germane to the goal of building an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Gee, I wonder how the wanton destruction by Russia of cities like Mariupol, the displacement of 6 million people, the killing of thousands, as well as the censorship of its own citizens, repression of its own press, jailing of protesters, etc... is against the goals of building an encyclopedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sadly, it's becoming clear to me that using Wikipedia pages for partisan grandstanding on a political issue is to be regarded as acceptable when most of the predominantly American userbase agrees with the stance being taken.

  If the headline in the Community's newsletter was "We stand with Russia", there would be uproar.

  Policy is important. And the core policy that we are here to to build an NPOV encyclopedia is undermined by wikilawyering over whether I should have cited WP:SOAPBOX rather WP:NPOV. BrownHairedGirl (talk) •

BrownHairedGirl, this harping on "Americans, Americans, Americans" is not at all helpful because the governments of a large majority of the world's nations have called this Russsian invasion aggressive and unlawful, and the vast majority of the reliable sources frequently cited on Wikipedia and published in countries all over the world with foreign policy expertise say the exact same thing. The main sources defending the Russian invasion have been determined to be unreliable long before this war broke out a little over a month ago. This is not an "American" issue and the countries to the immediate west of Russia are demonstrably more alarmed than Americans are. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (contribs) 05:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Newspapers publish editorials. Big flipping deal. Invoking NPOV in this context is a red herring. WP:SOAPBOX doesn't apply either; that applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages, none of which describes the Signpost. Stretching that policy to cover the extremely anodyne editorial currently being argued over would also require the deletion of many — I daresay most — essays on this website. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Please identify the [[Wikipedia:Essay]s whose headline takes a partisan political stance on an international conflict. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:No Nazis. XOR'easter (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, so there's one that comes close.

  But you say that most essays are like that, so I am sure you will have no problem quickly linking another dozen or so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  You stated, On real-world issues, the Signpost should uphold NPOV, just as it applies to articles. Otherwise the Signpost becomes a soapbox, as it did in this case, contrary to WP:SOAPBOX. I am taking that at face value. NPOV applies even when there is no partisan political stance involved, so the only conclusion I can draw is that, accepting your premise, the Signpost can never take a position in any editorial, whether or not there's a war afoot. XOR'easter (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am pleased to see that the concept of NPOV is finally becoming clearer. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the strong consensus across multiple pages of discussion involving many experienced editors is that it doesn't apply here, so yes, I think the concept is pretty clear. It honestly seems to me that your invocation of it would rule out every editorial, every op-ed (they're all advocacy!), and vast swaths of our essays and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl I strongly recommend you let the issue go. You are bludgeoning the discussion and continuing a dispute where you are clearly in absolute minority. I would recommend taking a a few days off and writing an essay where you fully outline your points, share it, and let it sit. I started this thread as an opportunity for the community to discuss the role of the Signpost within the community based on some nuances I saw in the ANI thread that weren't being discussed, not for you to rehash the same arguments over a single editorial. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hoped that the problem of the main Community Newsletter taking a brazenly partisan political stance would be widely understood, and that this discussion could develop some guidance on how to avoid a recurrence. My initial contributiosnswere all in that vein.

  Sadly, that is not the goal of most commenters here, who have chosen to instead express their forthright defence of using the Signpost as a political soapbox to declare unqualified partisanship. I replied to those points, and it's a pity that you blame me for the choice of others to lead the discussion off-topic into their defences of that singe editorial. But so it goes.

  I will not be writing an essay on this. I have made my point quite well enough already, and it is abundantly clear that speaking up for NPOV is an utter waste of time and energy when speaking to people who think that NPOV doesn't apply when they believe that they are in a clear majority. When this issue arises again, my comments will be in the archive ... unless, of course, some POV warrior decides to simply delete the discussion rather than closing and archiving it; such outright deletion has been attempted twice already.

  My faith in the en.wp community has taken another very severe dent. Wikipedia could and should be so vastly better than this, treasuring our neutrality in a sea of angry partisanship. Instead, the Signpost has been playing to a war-frenzied crowd, and allowing the impression to stand that the community of editors who claim to produce an NPOV encyclopedia are actually a bunch of nuance-free partisans who become drop the pretence when they can argue (however implausibly) that they are not actually 'required to sustain the facade of neutrality.

  A reputation for neutrality is hard won, but easily squandered. This is a very sad day. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl I think where you and the community might be disagreeing is the current piece from the editors. Some (me included) see it as unnecessarily political in its wording (especially the title), but most people seem to see it as neutral enough to not be an issue in the long term. However, seeing how consensus is that the current piece is alright, a more constructive target for your good-faith and reasonably-argued (if perhaps too intense) efforts would be to focus on the Signpost in general and not just this issue. Non-neutral userboxes and essays with the same tone would not really bat anyone's eye but the editorial did. Is this because the Signpost is seen as a de facto representative of the community, as others have said in this thread? Should that come with additional expectations than what has already been made explicit to them? That seems to me like a much more interesting question and one which might have the constructive result you seek if only in the long- and not the short-term. Let's assume the editorial is left as-is but is seen as a misstep to have published it. Is this a side-effect of their publishing process, which you yourself have raised issues with? Could that be due to low participation in the actual creation of the Signpost by the community outside of a small handful of volunteers? Ideas for how to increase that participation could help prevent such editorials from being published. These are the nuances I reference above and which I think should be discussed. I don't think those discussions will happen at ANI nor DRV, nor do I think pursuing retraction of the editorial will lead to those discussions either. I hope my post above didn't read passive-aggressively or dismissive (I am bad at subtext), and I genuinely appreciate you voicing your opinion. I hope you did not feel discouraged by me from pursuing the long-term growth and strengthening of the community we all seek. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  The representation point is an important one. While the Signpost is a user-generated project and not article material, it is not equivalent to userboxes or individual essays. There may not be a formal agreement on the matter, but in some ways the Signpost as a community-written publication is expected to follow the principles of the Wikipedian (or Wikimedian) community. These include neutrality. While NPOV as a policy does not explicitly apply, (and could not apply in the same way as it does to articles,) it is a community value. The Signpost About page already acknowledges this, stating "The Signpost does not specifically maintain a commitment to neutrality in the same way that Wikipedia articles do, but the magazine is nonetheless known, and aims to serve, as a balanced and impartial news source". On that same page, the Signpost also acknowledges its impact, stating it is "attaining a readership—and an impact—for our publications that far exceeds any of the other, more disparate publication channels and newsletters maintained among the projects." These are explicit expectations that are already written. The editorial in question takes a position not only in its title, but also (and in my mind to a more troublesome extent) in its second paragraph, which states that the Signpost is documenting, and even actively searching for, one particular POV. It is an explicit call for a certain viewpoint, and could easily be read as suggesting such a call also apply to Wikipedia content. There has been some conversation about op-eds and the importance of allowing for the expression opinions. This is valid, but this editorial is presented not just as one opinion, but as the collective view of the entire publication. I do not see how this editorial meets either the Signpost's description of itself, or its Statement of purpose. CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Most newspapers have an editorial board that publishes opinions and even endorses political candidates in elections. This does not discredit their news reporting though, because the editorial board is separate from its news reporting. That seems to be the case here with the Signpost, but the issue is they just haven't made that distinction clear enough. ––FormalDude talk 09:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and this raises yet more questions. Newspapers often hold a particular viewpoint, based on certain principles, which their editorials reflect. I do not see what principle of the Signpost is expressed through this editorial, and as I have mentioned it seems to conflict with their existing principles as written. CMD (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz: thanks for the very civil tenor of that reply. I do appreciate it.

  I think that there may be merit in your description of the community's view to @EpicPupper's op-ed as being neutral enough to not be an issue in the long term. I think that's one possibly viable reading of the community's assessment.

  However, I regard any such of assessment the article as utterly absurd: that piece is blatantly and unequivocally partisan. AFAICS, there is not a microscopic shred of neutrality in declaring that you stand by one party to a conflict, and I don't care if a hundred million editors on winged horses tell me otherwise: I do not see any trace of neutrality there.

  I see a lot more mileage in your thoughtful remarks about the nature of The Signpost., and its low participation. I note for example that the very nice editor who wrote this op-ed has been on en.wp for less than two years, so is far from being one of our more experienced editors. I can't help wondering if greater experience would have led to more caution. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• NPOV doesn't apply to the Signpost, as it's not in article space. It's entitled to have editorials and opinion pieces, as long as they are identifiable as such. Storm, teacup, etc. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• This is so overblown that it's kind of hilarious. Sdkb said it best 10 hours ago: just amend the post to explicitly state on the very top that (1) Signpost is an unofficial editorial or whatever and (2) "emphasizing that [Wikipedia] remains neutral in conflicts". Curbon7 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Like any other user, The Signpost and its editors are absolutely required to abide by NPOV, SOAPBOX, etc. And in this case, they have done so admirably. They have not attempted to manipulate Wikipedia articles to reflect their point of view. They have been careful to limit their editorial to discussing the impacts of the war on Wikipedia rather than diving into political tangents. If some editors still take issue with their piece, then they will need to muster a strong consensus at WT:NPOV itself to actually change where the policy applies. VPM is the wrong forum. – Teratix ₵ 15:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Teratix this is not a discussion, at least as I have formulated it, only on whether NPOV applies to the Signpost nor an attempt to gain consensus in that favor. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the other questions asked :). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  They have been careful to limit their editorial to discussing the impacts of the war on Wikipedia rather than diving into political tangents is blatantly untrue. If it were true, this discussion would not be happening. The editorial explicitly dives into political tangents. The only information about the war's affect on Wikipedia is that editors are updating relevant pages. CMD (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I count one sentence in the editorial (The ongoing invasion of Ukraine has already caused unimaginable pain and suffering and impacted millions) which does not explicitly deal with the war's impacts on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you are reading the second paragraph about the work of the Signpost to "spotlight" particular viewpoints and to feature a "rich history" as about the impact on Wikipedia, then that underlines the isuses with this editorial. CMD (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe I understand where BrownHairedGirl is coming from... If a full-blown war broke out between Israel and Palestine right now, and there's a Signpost headline stating We stand in solidarity with Israel, would that be okay? Where is the line drawn? Some1 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  ^ Let's stick to what we can agree on: standing in solidarity with free information. Firestar464 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there's probably a grey area between signpost pieces that should be written and those that shouldn't. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  If Palestine (1) was uncontroversially acknowledged as the aggressor and (2) disproportionately suppressed Wikipedia's mission by, e.g. causing mass displacement of editors, demanding the WMF block access to neutral articles on the conflict or arresting editors whose contributions conflicted with the Palestinian POV, then such an editorial would be justified.

  If (1) was met but not (2), it would fail SOAPBOX. If (2) was met but not (1), the editorial would be enormously controversial, probably cause a large section of the community to disendorse the Signpost, and possibly fail HARASSMENT if it implicitly endorsed Israeli aggression.

  However, the point is moot because if a war between Israel and Palestine broke out tomorrow, I doubt either (1) or (2) would be true. – Teratix ₵ 02:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• A logical fallacy: "if we say this about Ukraine, image saying similar about Iraq." Every case is unique, there is no slippery slope. Signpost exists outside mainspace different rules apply. I support freedom for an in-house grassroots volunteer effort even if I don't always agree with everything (comments section). Signpost is not written by "the community" rather a few volunteers. If you don't like the content get involved is the wiki way. If Signpost turns into an insufferable social justice soapbox on a wide range of issues then sure, something should be done. But I don't see that now or in the future. -- GreenC 03:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  @GreenC: the test you set an insufferable social justice soapbox uses the terminology of the political right in the USA, commonly used to attack social movements such as BLM and LGBT rights.

  I cannot know your intent, but the effect of what you are saying is that the Signpost may take political stances so long as they do not regularly offend one worldview one one side of the politics of the USA, a country which amounts to about 5% of the world' population.

  Our community of Wiki editors includes people from all around the world, of many different viewpoints. Setting such a narrow Overton window excludes most of the planet from expressing their views, while privileging one viewpoint. That is why I believe that is much much better to keep political opinion out of the Signpost. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Social justice is not a derogatory term nor one reserved for the "political right in the USA", nor is it specific to BLM or LGBT, your attempt to frame my comment as some sort of insular "right wing USA" thing, it's not, and way off base. The issues are fundamentally global in nature. Fascism, racism, nationalism, misogyny, science denial, historical negationism.. know no boundary and are all part of a package one can find in many countries causing division between free and open societies. Freedom and openeness are the DNA of Wikipedia, regimes that arrest and jail Wikipedia editors, shut Wikipedia down in their countries, I have no problem taking sides in support of the ecology that makes Wikipedia possible to exist - it is an existential issue. My comment "insufferable social justice soapbox" refers to a situation when anyone with an otherwise worthy cause to promote is using the Signpost ad nausea to promote it, there is nothing to unpack here for some hidden meaning beyond that, and is another logical fallacy (strawman). -- GreenC 21:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  social justice warrior is a "right wing USA" thing and your comments appeared to be taking that stance. Thanks for clarifying your intent, but after it is a pity that you chose to pollute your reply with a false allegation that my reasonable reading of your language was a straw man.

  However the rest of your response is an unambiguous expression of American liberal hegemony. You are quite entitled to hold that POV, but that POV is a long way from universal. Your phrase free and open societies is a propaganda term which is commonly used by propagandists to include the most imprisoned society on earth in which the Black Lives Matter movement protests what they see as systematic repression; those two facts alone are enough to show that the world is more complex than your crude division of the world into free and notfree.

  You are fully entitled to your worldiew, and I have no desire to try to dissuade you of it, or even to debate it with you. I simply ask that you respect the fact that many decent, reasonable, rational people see the world very differently. Some people with those other viewpoints are your colleagues on Wikipedia, and others are readers of Wikipedia. Please do not drive people away from Wikipedia by hijacking Wikipedia as a vehicle for one worldiew. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To all: Could someone address whether WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS factors into this discussion? (If so, how and why… if not, why not?) Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  To speak in BHG's defense given the responses they have gotten back here: the issue of whether the Signpost should opine is not an issue that NPOV or RGW should cover, but the attitudes of several editors above in harshly criticizing BHG's stance of their view about what the Signpost should do is very much in line with trying to push RGW. Wikipedia's main article content needs to stay amoral and not take sides in these larger world conflicts, and global shifts in the last ten years have made that difficult. But we have seen far too many editors (some of it here, this is the tip of the iceberg) make a big deal when other editors speak from a position related to neutrality, instead chastising them for taking a minority or fringe or similar position (I've been in that position myself). This is not acceptable at all. Yes, we do not want to welcome editors that are walking around with a huge POV chip on their shoulders, but it absolutely inappropriate to be attacking editors that raise fair questions about neutrality. And sometimes these arguments about why they raise these issues are along the RGW argument, which, no, even in personal interactions with editors, should not raised unless it is crystal clear that a POV conflict is present. (At one point I caught in a diff but since removed, "NONAZIS" was brought up, which is the ultimate insult you can throw at an editor working at good faith). While the isuse re: should the Signpost opine is a fair question, everything else around it is exposing how ugly our personal interactions have become due to trying to maintain RGW-type views. --Masem (t) 01:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Signpost as a news publication

• Journalism ethics and standards
• Opinion piece

• bbc
• reuters
• chicago tribune

The above are just some examples of journalistic standards. Most legitimate news publications have them.

• per bbc:

There are several different types of newspaper articles:

• News articles - these are found at the front of a newspaper. They inform readers about things that are happening in the world or in the local area. They will be full of facts, like names, dates and places.
• Feature articles - these explore news stories in more depth. The purpose of a feature is not just to tell you what has happened, but to explore or analyse the reasons why. These kind of pieces normally name the writer who wrote them - a byline.
• Editorials, columns and opinion pieces - these are pieces by 'personality' writers. They might be there to inform (because the writer's expert opinion is valued), or they might be there to entertain (because the writer has a comic or interesting way of describing everyday life). They are likely to have a more personal style that the writer regularly uses when writing - this could be shown through particular vocabulary or the opinion of the writer.

I don't care if the signpost wants to run an editorial, or opinion piece. Just make it clear.

• mdpi article types

The link above lists types of articles, I think this could be a decent place to start for denoting the type of an article. (Though perhaps more categories than we need.) - jc37 05:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears they already have categories like that: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance. ––FormalDude talk 05:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice! So the question is, does "From the team" make it clear that this is a Signpost editorial? I ask, because I could maybe understand the view that someone might mistakenly think this was from the community-at-large. - jc37 05:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"From the team" denotes in my eyes that it comes from the Signpost editorial staff, because it'd be really hard for tens of thousands of editors (or however many Wikipedia editors edit monthly) to get together and write something :P ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

lol. Well all I was thinking is perhaps adding an adjective to "team", like "editorial", or "Signpost" might add clarity. - jc37 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but I guess I've always had the common sense to think that anything from the Signpost that's an opinion is, well, an opinion. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 06:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

With the Wikipedia community being so diverse, and with so many varied perspectives and experiences, I think it might be difficult to define "common" sense : ) - jc37 06:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "From the editorial team" sounds nice and is a little more clear. ––FormalDude talk 06:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I kinda do too, however, the byline used "Signpost team", so, following that out of deference. - jc37 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I actually prefer "Signpost team" by a narrow margin. "Editorial team" isn't bad and would be fine for most newspapers, but "editor" has its own meaning on Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would greatly prefer that the Signpost refrained from publishing any opinion pieces on matters not directly pertaining to Wikipedia. The interwebs are awash with opinion on world affairs, and I see no advantage to anyone in having Wikipedia join the Tower of Babel by hosting yet more opinion-spouting.

The Signpost might potentially add value to the community by publishing reasoned opinions on notability, RFA reform, the reliability of sources, systemic bias, the usability of editing tools, WMF's use of resources, or a host of other internal issues. But on world affairs or politics, there are many other sources which are way better-qualified than en.wp editors. And publishing an op-ed which bravely restates the dominant view of the Anglosphere is, to put it politely, superfluous. To put it less politely, it's self-indulgent futility.

But insofar as The Signpost publishes any opinion piece on any topic, then it would be much better to drop this attempt to emulate the "collective voice" style of editorial used by self-regarding old newspapers such as The Times of London or The New York Times.

It would be much more transparent if opinion pieces were simply signed by their author(s) and (optionally) by whichever set of editors accepted a request to support them. There is no need to claim to speak for some collective. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, I'n kinda on the fence about that. I think that if we allow editors to add such things to their user page, then this isn't really out-of-bounds. That said they really need to be clear when it's opinion. On the other side of this, as it being the signpost, I would more have expected one or more articles talking about Wikipedia's coverage of the event(s), and maybe behind-the-scenes articles, like if discussions (like this one : ) - took place. I liked the idea behind that first-hand perspective of what it's like to edit Wikipedia inside Ukraine right now, for another example. - jc37 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That premise seems faulty. AFAIK, we do not allow editors to use their userpages to post essays about their views on world affairs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: We explicitly allow this. There was no lab leak, Lab Leak Likely, Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?, among many others. ––FormalDude talk 21:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: What on earth are you on about?

User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak is explicitly a review of sources.

It does not in any way proclaim allegiance to one faction in a war, and it is a wholly different type of page to a partisan political declaration. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Um, I'm on about what you literally just said, posting essays about their views on world affairs? Shift the goalposts much? ––FormalDude talk 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude is that content guidance meant for internal (e.g. training new contributors to the signpost) or external reading (explaining their content to non-contributors)?A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it kinda seems like both. It was easy for me to find. ––FormalDude talk 07:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I find it as dual-purpose :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

-quite similar to our guideline/policy pages. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, FormalDude and EpicPupper (cute emoji btw). In that regard perhaps I'd argue is a monthly community magazine written and edited by users like you may not be enough to clarify it is not a publication endorsed by the whole community or an offical publication for it? I remember as a new editor (in the olde days of 6 months ago) I genuinely thought the Signpost was official even after reading all these sections. I can't see further clarity on that point not helping. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Signpost should be more of an internal “newsletter” than a Newspaper. If you want to practice journalism go to Wikinews. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Newsletter or newspaper, whether a section is an opinion piece or not, should be clear to all readers. As for Wikinews, it has it's own Wikinews:Policies and guidelines, which, incidentally includes NPOV - jc37 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the first time, we have wasted pixels over the Signpost. But the story is the same. If you want stricter guidelines for it you will have to create them and get consensus for them. If you want a community retraction process, you will have to create it and get consensus for it. If you want more or different disclaimers or ëditorial notices, propose them and get consensus for them. In the meantime, The Signpost staff interprets its mission (including whether an opinion is mission related) and decides its opinions, and there are only a few things that apply: TOU, basically nothing illegal (including copyright); BLP; and general conduct- because the Signpost has been editorial opinonating since always. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Hello! I have edited the editorial page to clarify the nature of the editorial, its (non) involvement with the general views of the community and the Wikimedia Foundation, how the editorial came to be, its relation to policy (especially WP:NPOV), and an invitation for readers to address any concerns with me. I appreciate everyone's patience during these important times of community discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Your effort is appreciated -- but the fundamental issue remains. Should The Signpost ever publish editorials and take advocacy positions on issues that are not directly related to Wikpedia policies and internal affairs? I say no. Hell, no. In other words, it's good and informative for The Signpost to say that an article entitled "Ukrainian Invasion" had X views and X contributors and that a dispute about X took place. But it is never appropriate for The Signpost to express an opinion, e.g. "we stand with Ukraine", that is not directly related to internal Wikipedia operations and issues. I'd like to see a policy to this effect come out of this discussion. Smallchief (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    I would not support any policy to that effect. We have WP:PRJC for a good reason. ––FormalDude talk 21:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    • I agree with Smallchief… the “About” page for the Signpost states that it’s purpose is to cover: “…the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large.” Any coverage of world events needs to be filtered through that lens. It is fine for the Signpost to discuss how an external event (such as the war in Ukraine) affects Wikipedia, but not fine to discuss world events in general. That is not the purpose of the Signpost. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    I agree with Smallchief. Appropriate Signpost articles about the conflict would consider directly Wikipedia-related issues such as the work of building encyclopedic coverage of the war, and the difficulties faced by Wikipedians who have been caught up in the conflict in whatever way.

    But if Signpost writers want to express their political opinion on a hot topic, please find somewhere else to do it. Go to Twitter or Facebook, start a blog, write on medium[.]com or substack, submit your article to a newspaper or magazine ... but don't abuse Wikipedia as the soapbox for your hot take. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    And if these "difficulties" you mention include being imprisoned or killed, are you still in favor of neutrality? Explicit refusal to denounce is implicit support. Слава Украине. Vermont (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Vermont, this is not complicated. If we denounce and condemn killings, then we should be scrupulous to denounce all such killings. Writers who are not scrupulous about this are called propagandists.

    In wars, both sides are engaged in killing. That's the nature of war. If we endorse one side, we are endorsing one set of killings. That is what I want to avoid.

    Personally, I think that the best way to approach any conflict is to scrupulously avoid any moral tone: just set out the facts as fairly and accurately as we can, referencing the best sources that we can find, and let our readers set form their own moral judgement on what we describe. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    "If we endorse one side, we are endorsing one set of killings." Yes, we are endorsing the rights of those attacked by a genocidal despot to defend themselves and their land. Take your false balance nonsense out of here. There is a right and wrong side in Nazi vs Jews, just as much as there is one in Russia vs Ukraine. That you can't discern it, refuse to discern it, or espouse extreme neutralism in the face of abject evil does not mean that others, including Signpost editors, are not allowed to have a viewpoint on anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Oh dear. I m not asking in any way for balance, let alone "false balance".

    I am simply asking for neutrality: that we relate the facts as best we can, and let readers decide their own view on it.

    I understand your empathy with those who you perceive as having been attacked by a genocidal despot, and your view is clearly in a large majority. I personally share that view.

    However, there are also dissenting views on this war, as there have been on many other wars. If we start taking sides on this war, where do we stop? Do we back one side in the Iraq War? In Vietnam? In the American-instigated coup in Chile, and subsequent dictatorship? In the 4 British invasions of Afghanistan? The Soviet invasion of Aghanistan? In the war in Yemen, which is claiming far more lives that Ukraine? In Syria? In the drone war in Pakistan? In the American invasions of Cuba and the Philippines, or of Guatemala? The Indian invasion of Goa? The illegal American bombing of Laos? The British wars against China to secure markets for British drug traders? Do we denounce the abject evil of American waterboarding, or British "enhanced interrogation" in Northern Ireland or the genocide of native Americans or Burmese persecution of the Rohinga?

    The internet has many many places where people can express their views of political issues. Wikipedia is the place where we come together to write neutrally about all topics, and I simply ask that we retain that neutrality in our community spaces too.

    I do have to quote your final sentence "That you can't discern it, refuse to discern it, or espouse extreme neutralism in the face of abject evil does not mean that others, including Signpost editors, are not allowed to have a viewpoint on anything.

    That is a very nasty, vicious and utterly false personal attack on me. I Have not in any way suggested that anyone should not have a viewpoint. I ask only that this site is not place to express that view. The internet has many other places where people can express their views ... and yoir claim that I am somehow trying to censor anyone is malevolent nonsense.

    I personally take the view that all war is evil. I do not ask anyone here to agree with me about that, or to debate that view; I simply ask that we keep our opinions out of this task of building an encyclopedia, and out of our community pages. I fund it deeply obnoxious and viciously bullying that you have chosen to attack me for not joining in your emotive demands that I conform to your selective denunciation of atrocity. Please take your vile smear tactics and your vicious bullying elsewhere.

    This is the third time in a few months that you have used extremely hostile language to radically misrepresent me. I hope that on this occasion you will have the decency to retract your smear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    That is not what I am talking about. I refer to the human rights violations of the Russian and Belorussian governments against Wikipedia editors for their contributions to Wikipedia. If you were arrested by your government for writing about some view on Wikipedia contrary to their line, would you expect your colleagues here to remain quiet about it? Is it not a disservice to those who are actively oppressed by oligarchic regimes to maintain a "neutral" stance on this? I agree with you when it comes to mainspace articles about wars in the abstract. It would be nice if all us Wikipedia editors were alien observers watching from a nice happy uninvolved space station. But we're not, we're affected by the content we write about, and sometimes simply engaging in that writing is enough to be targeted by governments. Silence is, in my view, not an acceptable option. Vermont (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    Again, @Vermont, you misunderstand me.

    I have not in any way argued for remining silent about arrests of people for writing, and I think it's a great pity that you raise that straw man.

    All I ask that is that we do so neutrally: that we apply the same criteria in all cases, that we do not pick and choose cases, and that we speak to the actions rather than giving a blanket endorsement of one side in a dispute or a blanket condemnation of the other.

    If you want to broaden this to start to condemning regimes, then if we apply consistency we will generate lot of controversy. For example, the US & UK are currently colluding to jail a man who exposed war crimes, and if en.wp starts condemning or endorsing the countries involved, then the on-wiki dispute will be huge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, "that we apply the same criteria in all cases" has not been your argument. You have continued to oppose showing support for Ukraine in the name of NPOV as your primary point. My point is that this isn't a NPOV issue, this is a human rights issue. And I understand there is a difference between simply advocating against the actions themselves instead of the governments that carry them out as a matter of policy, and a difference between advocating against those actions and other actions of that government. But this is all one larger topic, not separate issues. The Russian government is seemingly enacting a policy of enforced compliance with their line of information, specifically related to their invasion of Ukraine. And if your argument here is to pursue a line of greater nuance in how we present support for Ukraine and opposition to the Russian government, I am all for it. But that is not what you've been arguing outside of this. You have been arguing for a blanket ban on taking any side. Which, as I somewhat mentioned earlier, is itself taking a side. Vermont (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Vermont: whether the topic is human rights or anything else, there is more than one POV.

    I have argued throughout that we should report the facts neutrally and impartially, using consistent criteria, and let our readers decide their own POV. Declaring support for one side or the other undermines our ability to do that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl: You’ve selectively ignored large parts of my comments that you seemingly can’t address and changed your argument between exchanges. Are we talking about mainspace articles or project-space messaging? The latter, up until this, apparently. Are we talking about your refusal to denounce human rights abuses or the existence of multiple POVs? The former, up until this. I said previously that I agree with you, content articles should be neutral. That has not been a point of contention up until you decided to pretend it is one, and is, to borrow your phrasing, a great pity that you raise this straw man. And so I will reiterate my previous question: if you were arrested by your government for your contributions to Wikipedia, would you expect your colleagues to pretend it never happened? Why is it such a great crime that we oppose human rights violations and express support for the people subject to those atrocities? Слава Украине. Vermont (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    The arrested Wikipedians are Belarusian, and are not mentioned or alluded to in the editorial in question. (One arrest is covered here, which I suspect went to press before news of the second arrest was known.) CMD (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Vermont, you reject the principle that we should reports the facts but remain neutral. I have explained why I support neutrality, and we will have to just disagree on that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry, what? Did you even read my comment? I made it clear, for the second time, that we agree on neutrality in articles. And yet again you bring up this fallacy, avoiding addressing any of my actual comment. At this point there's no conclusion that I or a reader could reasonably come to other than that you are determined to maintain your initial stance regardless of what stretches of logic you need to employ to justify it. I would go on but there's no point in rehashing what Headbomb wrote above. Regardless, I've expended every bit of good faith discussion energy I can here. Vermont (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Vermont, this is supposed to be a civil discussion between colleagues, but your tone is becoming increasingly aggressive and accusatory.

    I have not been discussing neutrality in articles. That is a starw man of your creation.

    I retain my view that the community newsletter should not take a POV stances on issues of political controversy, except insofar as they directly relate to the encyclopedia. That includes human rights issues, because many of those issues are disputed.

    Your are evidently angry that I have not changed my stance, so I see no point in continuing this discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Your position has been to vehemently oppose the denounciation of human rights violations committed against other editors. That is where my emotion in this stems from. Vermont (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Vermont take it to her talk page if you wish to discuss this personally with BHG. Your dispute with her about the conflict does not have to take up so much space in this thread and it is time for you two to move on if you don't see that you won't convince each other.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Vermont, please stop the smear tactics. I have already made it very clear that I want to disengage.

    And no, @A. C. Santacruz: Vermont is NOT welcome on my talk. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    No problem. "That includes human rights issues, because many of those issues are disputed" told me all I needed to know. Vermont (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Hello @BrownHairedGirl. I believe a included coverage of the work of building encyclopedic coverage of the war, and the difficulties faced by Wikipedians who have been caught up in the conflict in whatever way; I believe the below sentences in the editorial may be of interest.

    People are coming to the Wikimedia projects to learn facts, and Wikimedians around the world are collaborating to share their knowledge. Contributors are helping however they can, from documenting the crisis in over 100 languages, to ensuring that coverage of Ukraine and Russia-related articles is thorough, to assisting other users who need support.

    and

    We are also working to document and unearth as much as we can about the war and those affected, publishing reports on disinformation, spotlighting the voices of Ukrainians impacted, featuring the rich history of Ukraine, and much more.

    The Signpost has published several reports relating to the War, including "In the media", covering press coverage of the Wikimedia movement's coverage of Russia and Ukraine, "News and notes", featuring explanation of the edit that caused arrest and jail time in Belarus, "Eyewitness Wikimedian", with first-hand accounts of what I believe is the difficulties faced by Wikipedians who have been caught up in the conflict in whatever way, the "Disinformation report" with information on disinformation in Wikipedia regarding conflict-related articles... and the list goes on. Respectfully, I believe that the Signpost has covered appropriately the relation between our encyclopedic content and the Russo-Ukrainian War, and I would appreciate if this coverage would be considered in the evaluation of the Signpost currently undergoing here. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    @EpicPupper: thanks for that, and thanks again for your civil and collaborative tone.

    I am sorry, but I don't have the energy to review all of the Signpost's coverage of Ukraine. I am having to waste too much time rebutting the bogus allegations, misrepresentations and outright fabrications and personal abuse made against me by a few intemperate editors who as usual remain unrestrained.

    So for now will comment only on the op-ed which I (unsuccessfully) MFDed. It does contain some good phrases, but those are fatally undermined by its naked partisanship in several places. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BrownHairedGirl: I fully understand. If you are intending to focus your attention on the editorial rather than the rest of the Signpost, I believe the correct venue to continue would be the deletion review discussion. Although this village pump entry has certainly been useful for facilitating early community discussion regarding the Signpost at large, I would pause or close it at the moment in order to allow the DRV to run its course. From there, I believe further community discussions can be workshopped that would allow for broader input and clearer options. I feel like continuing with discussion here could be seen by others reviewing in bad-faith as forum shopping, and would encourage an administrator to close this discussion pending closure of the deletion review. Thank you, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    I'd also like to clarify that the piece is an editorial, not an op-ed. Op-ed explains that an op-ed expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board., but instead this piece is an editorial, intended to express the opinion of the editorial board. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    I understand that theoretical distinction between editorial and op-ed, but it seems to me to be a pointless distinction. Either way, it is one or more writers expressing an opinion.

    It also seems to me to be rather overblown to characterise the handful of volunteers who write the Signpost in their spare time as an "editorial board". I value the hard work you all do, but reality is closer to a village newsletter than to the editorial conference room of The New York Times. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    @EpicPupper: I understand your point about DRV, but I think it is mistaken.

    The discussion at DRV is a narrow one about whether to delete that page.

    The discussion here is about future policy for the 'Signpost. It covers a wide range of issues, but the fact that my input is currently restricted to a subset of pages which might be considered is no reason to close or pause this whole policy discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    @EpicPupper: I have read some, although certainly not all, of the other Signpost coverage on the war and its impacts on Wikipedia. I have enjoyed them and found them informative. That is part of my disappointment relating to this editorial, which undermines that other coverage by overshadowing them with an explicit partisan stance and call to action. Determining that the Signpost has "covered appropriately the relation between our encyclopedic content and the Russo-Ukrainian War" is much harder when that work is framed around the call to "spotlight" certain views, and to focus on a "rich history" (the sort of emotive phrase we avoid in article space because it is a clear indicator the text is unlikely to be neutral and reliable). I think the body of work would be stronger if it had stood for itself, and spoke for itself. CMD (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you for your comments on the matter. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    • I don’t completely object to “hot takes”… as long as they are about topics within the scope of the signpost. If, for a hypothetical example, the government of France were to pass a law requiring frWP articles to be approved by government censors… I would have no problem with someone at the signpost editorializing about how bad bad bad that law is. The reason I would allow such a “hot take” is that the subject matter directly relates to WP… the scope of the signpost. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
      • This is the same rstional as to why en.wiki supported the SOPA blackout (as a direct threat to the WP model) but has been nearly possible to get the community to show support for any other cause that does not directly impact WP. --Masem (t) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

      I agree with @Blueboar. If it directly impacts en.wp, then it's a legit topic.

      But the scope should be narrowly-drawn. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is the bikeshediest of bikesheds, and the amount of collective energy editors have put into this discussion should bring nothing but deep shame upon every who participated in it. I feel dirty and gross even making this comment. Go find a spelling error to correct all of you. --Jayron32 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Hello all! After some careful thought, I have decided to retract the original statement on behalf of the Signpost team. Although certainly many support it, I believe it is important as a newspaper of record to remain neutral in times of crisis, as it is the reason that our readers can trust us. I have replaced it with a title that is hopefully more neutral, and a note affirming our neutrality in conflicts and explaining the retraction. I hope that this can be another step in righting this wrong. Thank you, and please ping me if you have any questions, comments or concerns. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for rewording it, EpicPupper, and for your endless patience during this whole ordeal (for which I apologize in partially causing). I hope this thread can serve as a place for the community to discuss other potential ways the Signpost could improve, at least when it comes to helping make producing it easier and making its relation to the rest of the community clearer (as I said above there seems to be disagreement on it occupies a representative role for the community at large). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Bold" edits: clarity requested

Prompted by an RfC discussion at the BRD discussion page.

• Is there a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a "bold" edit? The term is used frequently, and is part of a widely quoted guideline.
• Any definition will also delineate its opposite. Is the inherent emphasis on "bold" edits justified? Does it imply non-neutral approach vs edits thought to be non-bold?

This is about content or substance edits, not proofing or html-publishing-related edits. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The help articleWikipedia:Be bold seem deal kind of your query. This page in a nutshell: Please feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia in a fair and accurate manner.

In my personal perception 'Utilizing freedom to improve Wikipedia in reasonable goodfaith'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The response is appreciated, but it does not address the questions asked. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Be "bold" means do not be afraid to make a change. If you make a mistake it can be fixed. That's what "Go for it." means at Wikipedia:Be bold. The opposite of a "bold" edit is making no edit at all. The term comes from the dictionary definition as being brave and willing to take risks. It has nothing to do with being non-neutral. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle where it says Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, edit! Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the page. Either is a good outcome. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The first version of Wikipedia:Be bold was written in 2001. Back then, nobody had heard of a wiki. The idea that somebody could just walk up and make a change to a website by themselves was unheard of. That was what "Be bold" was trying to say: "Yes, really, we mean it, just make the change. You can do it. And moreover, we want you to do it". It wasn't just bold, it was radical. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So a "bold" edit is a regular edit with a slogan attached? Was ERD (instead of BRD) too mundane a term to "impactfully" (er...) promote the guideline? 65.254.10.26 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A "bold" edit is one you make based on your own initiative and intuition. It comes from the just-fix-it philosophy, where if you see an error you can just go and make the change. No need to consult others, you can boldly and unilaterally declare yourself a Wikipedia editor. A non-bold edit would be one which comes through a longer process such as a talk-page discussion. Both methods have their strength and weaknesses. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. I am trying to created Category:SafeSport. But as an IP, cannot. I tried Article Wizard, but it just send me in a circle.

Articles that might be considered for it include SafeSport for starters, and some of the articles that link to SafeSport.

A parent category might be Category:Child sexual abuse in the United States. Also Category:Sexual assaults in the United States and Category:United States at the Olympics.

Can someone perhaps help and start it for me?

Thanks! --2603:7000:2143:8500:84D0:51DB:559E:8F08 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Such requests should go at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification - extended voting statistics

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Greetings,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks from the close of voting for them to finish their work.

The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

---

Here are some further statistics (see more stats at WP:VPP) outling which projects voters were eligible to vote from in addition to their home wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

---

In these charts, a voter is considered to have qualified for a project if they had at least 20 edits between 7 August 2021 and 7 February 2022.

Voters by number of projects with qualifying edits

(including wikidata and commons)

•   1 wiki: 768 (33.5%)
•   2 wikis: 548 (23.9%)
•   3 wikis: 400 (17.5%)
•   4 wikis: 245 (10.7%)
•   5 wikis: 145 (6.3%)
•   6 or more: 186 (8.1%)

Qualifying voters per project

299 projects had at least one voter with 20 edits in the qualifying period: a voter may represent more than one project

---

More than 400 qualifying voters

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

Wikidata

English Wikipedia

Wikimedia Commons

Meta-Wiki

•   home wiki voters
•   +most edited voters
•   +qualifying voters

80 to 270 qualifying voters

50

100

150

200

250

300

dewiki

frwiki

ruwiki

plwiki

eswiki

zhwiki

jawiki

itwiki

mediawikiwiki

•   home wiki voters
•   +most edited voters
•   +qualifying voters

More statistics are available on Meta-wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)