Several discussions have transpired (or are underway) regarding the integrity of information presented by Wikipedia as well as the processes and people who ensure it remains trustworthy.

Requests for comment were open during October–November concerning possible resysop criteria for administrators and a proposed binding desysop procedure. Results are visible at those pages and summarized below:

• New RfCs were endorsed around resysop
  1. Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.
  2. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a bureaucrat discussion (also called "crat chat").
  3. If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to instead request through the WP:RFA process.
• No conclusion has thus far emerged regarding the proposed binding desysop procedures.

An RfC at Meta proposes serious actions on the Croatian Wikipedia. The RfC was begun by GregorB (talk · contribs) in October. Gregor also wrote The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia last August for The Signpost. Activity on the case has continued, up to within a few days of Christmas. A proposal to close has been made, but is not expected to be adopted soon.

PR whitewashing by operatives linked to Wiki-PR is under discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (permanent link) (also see this issue's "In the media" section and the "Special report").

Discussion of how to notify the community about mainstream media reporting on identified Wikipedia editors is ongoing at venues including the oversight mail list, the village pump and Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Suppression has been invoked on The Signpost in connection with this issue, and this is part of the discussion.

Other notable discussions included:

• In a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, the U.S. magazine Newsweek, published since 1933, was deemed not generally reliable post 2013.