The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-04-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• "newly created conflict-of-interest rules"? WP:COI goes back to 2004, originally titled WP:Vanity page. The change to specifically emphasize "Conflict of Interest" was made in October 2006. Which "newly created conflict-of-interest rules" are you talking about? Smallbones (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Arbitration report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Featured content

• Thanks SJ for responding. It's too bad other trustees were not able to comment by "press time." I'm not sure what the post-publication etiquette for this might be, but I would really like to see more complete answers from SJ (or others) to the questions posed. Nathan ^T 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To be sure, it wasn't that much their fault - the time was quite short. Significant content changes to Signpost pages should be avoided after publiation, but note that another, somewhat related interview has been conducted with Sj and is planned to appear in the next issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the 'press time' comment. I've been talking w/ HaeB about doing an inteview about MR for some time; the responses are mine alone. The questions were not posed to a wider group. Which questions do you feel need more complete answers? I'm also not sure on publication etiquette, but would be happy to have a more free-form ongoing discussion at m:Talk:Wikimedia affiliation models, where you can see input from others who have worked on these movement roles issues over the past year. – SJ +

• movement roles seems like a terrible name. Why not something that gives people some idea of what we are talking about, like authorized group? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  The discussion of movement roles is much broader than the issue of recognized groups. It also addressed issues such as the need for a chapters council, a contributors council, and a global requests committee; the need for clearer standards for accountability, transparency and committee work; and areas where there are confusing overlaps between the roles of different entities (including in forming partnerships and in fundraising and funds dissemination). – SJ + 20:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• The wording above seems to imply that the April fools incident alone was what caused Mabdul's RfA to fail, but it was probably the lesser of two issues that brought about the result (accusations of canvassing being the other). Kansan (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Does any of this have to do with the toolserver lagging almost 2 weeks behind at this time? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  I've updated the report with a section on toolserver lag; I'm guessing Friday/Saturday for the lag to be gone. Josh Parris 00:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• How many people participate in each of the technology polls Jarry1250 manages? That kind of information would help to determine whether the results fairly reflect the opinions of the community. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you click on the images, you get a better idea of the numbers. Note that the figures quote last week were the only proper ones - week 1 couldn't be properly trailed the week before (being the first of its kind), and with the ones quoted this week, there were technical problems that stopped some votes being registered. 10 people have given their thoughts already on next week's topic, and I would expect to reach 20-25 by publication time - hardly loads, but not no-one either. So do please give your own opinion, if you're reading this :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I do when I have an opinion on the poll question. Thanks for the answer, Jarry! -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Restoration of one of the databases for toolserver is complete. Replication lag is down to 3 days as I type and should be caught up in a few hours. For more info, here is the post by DaB. Bgwhite (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I love the WikiWorld comics! It would be great if we could revive them as part of The Signpost (or even on the Main Page?). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think having it on the Main page would be particularly encyclopedic. But I wouldn't mind having them back in the Signpost, but the artist quit for some reason or other. Rcsprinter (lecture) 12:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the interesting interview. I just learned of Wikimag and would love to hear from them in the Signpost, talking about their role. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I should be taking notes, huh? jp×g 10:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)