The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-01-21. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
I don't think this coverage is professional or useful. Probably no coverage is what I would prefer, for any ongoing mediation or arbitration case.
Yes, the linked list is one of two hate/attack pages developed by Orlady, singularly focused upon me, that I name in the Evidence. It is not "presumably"; i specifically name that as one of the two pages. Providing link to it here extends the effect of the hate/attack page, I think.
The issue is longterm harassment and bullying, is how I feel the arbitration could better have been titled, or longterm contention perhaps being neutral. The naming of the arbitration to be about me is circular, it makes it relatively more about me than about Orlady, Nyttend, SarekOfVulcan, other named parties, and the naming is itself biasing.
I didn't comment within this article's "clearing"; I feel my comments in the last Signpost's similar clearing didn't have useful effect. Last Signpost's coverage garbled (in my opinion) coverage of naming issue, suggesting too much that I would assume the arbitration committee members would be swayed by the biased naming. The naming is an obvious general problem, easily remedied by using an acronym or a number, and the academic research on anchoring and other biases is completely clear, in addition to the obvious effect of naming attracting different participants, so IMHO generally the naming policy should be changed. Name choice should not be the privilege of the opening disputant. I did not, however, say that I prejudged this arbitration committee's decision. The Signpost coverage should not be open to editing by arbitration participants, including me. The Signpost coverage should not take a stance either way. --doncram 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
GamerPro's contributions around the site had been greatly missed and I'm glad to see him back in the saddle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know there were 1,000,000 varieties of pasta! (Sorry, that was uncalled for. Naughty Optimist.) Seriously, does anyone know what the millionth article was? An optimist on the run! 12:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
On First Quarterly Review makes for interesting reading, just wanted to chime in with two points...
Anyway, thanks for the coverage Jarry! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The data centre migration seems to coincide with a delay I've been seeing in article cache invalidation. Prior to 22 January, edits I submitted were immediately reflected as the latest version of the article, assuming the page wasn't subject to pending change review (ah, the ever-increasing indignities of editing without logging in). In other words, after supplying an edit summary and submitting a change, the article page would automatically refresh, perhaps with a brief delay, with the changes visible. This isn't necessarily true anymore. In the past, even when the site was under a heavy load for one reason or another, a subsequent null edit would let me see the version of the article that reflected my changes; that isn't necessarily true anymore. Another change I never saw until now: it is possible for a null edit/purge to fail even when article history shows my changes. In other words, it now appears possible for the most recent WP:permalink for an article to differ from the default version of an article. Assuming I had just edited Metacarcinus these can now differ, something I haven't seen before, after years of editing:
68.165.77.6 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)