SignPost is on Life Support

[Renée Bagslint]

This may be relevant.

I have serious problems. Every time I log in, I am overwhelmed with an uncontrollable urge to vandalize.

A very wise and experienced editor, who even admitted that they did not possess a sense of humour advised me to take out those urges in the Signpost.

[Kumioko]

Now even the Wikipediots are admitting the Signpost is as good as gone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 3-29/Op-ed

[karmafist]

Now even the Wikipediots are admitting the Signpost is as good as gone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 3-29/Op-ed

Good riddance to it.

[Zoloft]

[Randy from Boise]

The same animated gif applies to the Wikipediocracy blog.

Same phenomenon.

RfB

[Zoloft]

The same animated gif applies to the Wikipediocracy blog.

Same phenomenon.

RfB

Sadly, you are probably correct.

If someone did want to post an article, though, I suspect more people would read it than if you put it in SignPost.

[Randy from Boise]

The same animated gif applies to the Wikipediocracy blog.

Same phenomenon.

RfB

Sadly, you are probably correct.

If someone did want to post an article, though, I suspect more people would read it than if you put it in SignPost.

The interesting questions: what are the reasons? Is there a cure?

RfB

[Kumioko]

It might help if people knew how to post one here. Do they start it as a discussion, send it to you? I have no idea and I'm sure others don't either.

As for the signpost, I'm glad to see it go. The Signpost is a great communication tool to let people know about key things that are going on in the Wikipedia project. That the signpost is dead, means that there is less activity and interest in the project itself. The Signpost is merely the most recent example of it, but we see it all over, in the WikiProjects, in the collaborations of the month, the portals, the article development and in the RFA's, just to name a few. The smell of rotting Wikipedia is starting to permeate even the most active areas now. So as a critic and hasten the dayer, I'm glad to see it go, because it means less communication is occurring in the project and that will continue it's decline.

[Anroth]

The interesting questions: what are the reasons? Is there a cure?

RfB

Signpost? The main reason its declined is editors are generally not interested in the navel-gazing that has only increased over time. A few years ago it was mostly 'this is what happened this week' - now its 'this is what I think about what happened this week in some corner that isnt really important except to me and 3 other people'.

Not to mention they had a number of relatively large spats with the wider community in the last few years that put some of the signpost regulars in their place. "Yes BLP does apply to the signpost, no we are not interested in hosting your opinion."

[Poetlister]

The interesting questions: what are the reasons? Is there a cure?

RfB

You forgot the key question. Is there any need or point in a cure?

[Kumioko]

The interesting questions: what are the reasons? Is there a cure?

RfB

Signpost? The main reason its declined is editors are generally not interested in the navel-gazing that has only increased over time. A few years ago it was mostly 'this is what happened this week' - now its 'this is what I think about what happened this week in some corner that isnt really important except to me and 3 other people'.

Not to mention they had a number of relatively large spats with the wider community in the last few years that put some of the signpost regulars in their place. "Yes BLP does apply to the signpost, no we are not interested in hosting your opinion."

I simply don't there is less interest in the community to get the information and I personally believe having communication in place like this is critical to the success of the project regardless of whether it contains straight facts, some conjecture or some combination. I think it's a matter of the people who are trying to improve Wikipedia being pushed out by people who want to be in charge of everything, enable hostility and the complete incompetence of the WMF (especially the Trust and Safety team led by James Alexander) to maintain any sense of civility on the sites or even a direction.

[karmafist]

I will once again renew my offer (though I may not be so generous in the future)... if the Signpost will agree to thoughtfully consider news posts that I write, and if published, my name will go in the byline, I will write a piece about once a month for the Signpost. I have a proven track record of publishing news about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. They should know how to contact me. I'm not as talented as Andreas Kolbe, but nearly so.

If you want to do it, go do it. Who's stopping you? Just make up some fake name like all the other Wikipedians do and go do it. It's not like it's actual journalism.

[Bezdomni]

Who's stopping you?

My own suspicion is that the answer to that particular question is "It's complicated."

---

So it's a slow news day... here's an Open letter to Chris Troutman, the new editor in chief of the Wikipedia Signpost.

On June 23, 2017 I was indefinitely blocked from the English version of Wikipedia for adding questions about the lack of authorship information on the talk page for Bibliography of Donald Trump and for suggesting -- in response to a Signpost request for story suggestions called "Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted" -- that inquiry into the story of Sagecandor's tenure on en.WP and inquiry into the story of Minassian Media's role at the WMF during the 2016 elections would be of significant interest (§). This request at the Signpost was characterized as "creepy" by a user who changed their account name to Bullrangifer. I still do not understand why encouraging factual reporting is creepy or block-worthy. But it was, to such a degree that ArbCom to this day will not allow me to contact you directly via the Wikipedia:Signpost page.

The relevent show-trials at AE: Sagecandor v. SashiRolls (June 2017). This case -- started by Sagecandor 11 minutes after my comment on the talk page of Bibliography of Donald Trump -- was decided with precipitation, with much reference being made to a previous case (Sagecandor v. SashiRolls Dec. 2016). At the time it was not widely known that Sagecandor was a long-term user of Wikipedia (who as it turns out had been desysopped and topic banned from all BLPs related to American Politics).

Once it became more widely known that Cirt was the sockmaster of the Sagecandor account, the latter account was immediately abandoned.

Looking back at the talk page archive of Fake News Website (to pick an important example), I notice that a lot of long-standing WP users shared my concerns about the SPA Sagecandor. Others did not:

Sagecandor's work on this page has been exemplary.

source

Here's an interview that came out at the time with Minassian-trained videographer Victor Grigas about fake news (Grigas started the Fake News Website page that Cirt would immediately take over. (TP archive)

These are three questions I wonder about:

• Should people be blocked for suggesting stories to the Signpost?
• Should people be blocked for suggesting that authorship information be more clearly established in remarkable cases like Cirt's given this former administrator's habit of being involved in AP2 drama, which resulted in his being banned from the topic?
• Should people be blocked because of complaints made by individuals violating ArbCom restrictions with impunity?

Some other stray comments, in case Wikipedia ever allows the Community to review the anonymous ArbCom clerk GoldenRing's block. (BU Rob23 has said by private correspondence that ArbCom does not wish to address the problem without community oversight. No oversight procedure was initiated despite this statement.) Personally, I don't see the need for a RfRA (request for re-admission) because the cases were clearly flawed and should have been overturned as soon as it became clear that Sagecandor was a sockpuppet in July 2017)

What follows are some things I would have (tried to) fix(ed) this week had it not been for the consequences of Cirt's disruption. (which ran from the week after the election until his identification as Sagecandor -- in the members-only section of this website).

I do notice problems in WP mainspace fairly frequently. Today, I noticed that the article on John T. Monroe (T-H-L) did not include information about his association with a Reconstruction era terrorist group The Southern Cross.

Monroe, also chief of a secret society known as "The Southern Cross," armed his police and the mob, who wore white handkerchiefs on their necks.

source

Early this week I'd noticed that a well-meaning contributor mis-translated an article into an en.wp BLP, claiming that after a custody-hearing, a French billionaire was liable to be jailed for 10 years.

Of course, beyond this unfortunate translation, the #1 search result @ Google on Vincent Bolloré (and Bolloré Group, incidentally) is actually much more incomplete than what even free newspapers like 20 minutes have written. The solid articles in FT, NYT, etc. have not been included so it's not just a problem of translation, but one of disinterest, I suspect. After all, it's about Africa...

---

Some, especially here, will think I am beating a dead horse, and I should leave the user formerly known as Cirt alone. The fact is: I remained blocked and ArbCom has not agreed either to open a case publicly or deal with the obvious error quietly despite the strong evidence. No public hearing has been given to any of this evidence on Wikipedia, including in either of the show trials mentioned above. Any suggestions from uninvolved parties as to how to proceed would be welcome.

[Bezdomni]

So, in fact, I've learned that Mr. Troutman is the publisher, not the EiC. It appears that the role of EiC remains mostly vacant editburoish (though Kudpung apparently did most of the proofreading and is/was calling himself "interim" EiC).

Reading a "cluey" user pop onto one of the talk pages (in focus) to go ballistic about proof-reading capital letters was pretty amusing.

[Kumioko]

First, it's unlikely they'll get much interest from the community on the signpost and I suspect it won't take long for them to run out of steam and abandon it themselves.

A couple notes I can think of:
- Kudpung has a reputation for sticking his nose into things like this, saying he is trying to improve things but really has his own agenda like he did on RFA reform where he did the reform that didn't gain traction and then used it as a mallet to beat down anyone who came up with an RFA related idea later. Maybe they could do any article about the effects on editing while drunk! Something Kudpung has done multiple times in the past.
- In order for the Signpost to be of use, people have to read it and in order for that to happen there must be 1) Editors who want to read it and 2) Something of interest in it to read. With editorship down, the community collapsing and the interest in Wikipedia related topics in general down, there isn't a need for the Signpost
- Any news medium put out, including that rag The Signpost, takes a significant amount of time, time that 2 admins could be spending doing actual improvements. With at least 2 active admins focusing their times on this trash, it takes 2 admins out of the front lines.

[Bezdomni]

a wiki-riddle:

What does The Signpost (T-H-L) have in common with a Fake news website (T-H-L)?

Authorship:

• Fake news website : Sagecandor 72.9%
• The Signpost: Cirt 73.4%

it may be just a coincidence that Andreas isn't mentioned as having been (co-)EiC

[Kumioko]

a wiki-riddle:

What does The Signpost (T-H-L) have in common with a Fake news website (T-H-L)?

Authorship:

• Fake news website : Sagecandor 72.9%
• The Signpost: Cirt 73.4%

it may be just a coincidence that Andreas isn't mentioned as having been (co-)EiC

This is a trick question, obviously. The Signpost is fake news...or at least heavily biased.

[Bezdomni]

Debate by signs has a long history... what follows is an old post from WR.

I find it fascinating how faithful to Rabelais en.wp is, even down to the detail of the name of the in-house paper.

Rabelais was the first to introduce the words "encyclopédie" & "cabale" to the French language in Pantagruel (the story of the adventures of a giant and his sidekick Panurge). In this book, a scholar named Thaumaste has thrown up everything and ventured from far England to study passages of philosophy, geomancy, and cabal with this encyclopaedian of growing renown. Eager for access to esoteric knowledge, he suggests proceeding to a debate by signs alone. Panurge is prompt to volunteer to play (though he is only the encyclopediot Pantagruel's assistant) and the chapter closes on him adorning his codpiece with flashy red, white, blue (and green and apply orange) fabrics. What follows involves:

• humming
• the breathing of a goose
• many spectators spectating noisily
• the clacking of teeth
• some whacking of Panurge's codpiece
• much miming of penetration

all of which is signed in a pestilent cloud of noisily passed gas. Soon thereafter the bold scholar makes haste back to London to write up how the giant’s mere assistant was able to open the "abysmal wells" of encyclopédie to him. Thaumaste was too proud, apparently, and wanted to know sekret kaballah... (maybe about the cyber incident response team?)

The Thaumaste episode in a book about Rabelais.

[Bezdomni]

Kudpung has a reputation for sticking his nose into things like this, saying he is trying to improve things but really has his own agenda like he did on RFA reform

—— tacky leak; don't read!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-ed

[Randy from Boise]

Kudpung has a reputation for sticking his nose into things like this, saying he is trying to improve things but really has his own agenda like he did on RFA reform

—— tacky leak; don't read!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-ed

I look forward to commenting about his article.

tim

[Kumioko]

I hope Kudpung spends lots and lots of time working on the Signpost because at the end of the day, that work will be wasted and while he is toiling away at the signpost, no article improvements will be made.