In the last Discussion report, I introduced a new contrivance of my own design — the electric winnower — which can automatically seek through noticeboard threads and tabulate their subject lines, lengths and numbers of participants; this allows the thousand or so threads that occur each month to be simmered down to a manageable list of the hundred, or two hundred, or fifty, or ten most active.
Time constraints, as well as an enormous backlog of unanalyzed discussions going back the whole year, meant that the last issue's report could not go any further than introducing the concept and giving a brief table-level overview of the basic statistics. However, this issue I have had more time available, and rather than the whole year this report is only covering a couple of months: June, July, and what little we've had of August.
The caveats I noted in the last report still apply, of course: perhaps most obviously, the winnower is only set up to prowl a short list of the noticeboards (and thereby misses a giant range of discussions held at other locations). More esoterically, it's an imperfect heuristic: size or participation is at best a loose proxy for the wider importance of a conversation. That is to say, all models are wrong, but some models are useful.
While individually reviewing all of the threads, my predictions from last time were largely borne out: a fair number of the most-active noticeboard discussions are indeed simple quotidian arguments which happen to be incredibly verbose. However, many of them are verbose for reasons that make them useful for making sense of Wikipedia: they touch on sensitive issues, they involve murky areas of ambiguous policy, or they deal with some new phenomenon that isn't well-covered by guidelines. Often, the behavior of a system in chaotic conditions can teach us a lot about how it functions (or doesn't): vehicles are tested by driving them into brick walls for a reason.
With that said, I will here analyze a portion of the fifty most-active noticeboard discussions for June, July and August 2025. The other portion, featuring the Village Pumps, will be in this issue's Community view (with descriptions written by Bri, as time has not permitted me to cover both).
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard, darling of the world's news media, did not have anything huge happen in the last couple of months. Of the four discussions that took place at RSN and made it into the most-active for this period, none were RfCs that made formal determinations, and none had formal closures.
Thread | Length | Number of signatures | Opened | Closed |
---|---|---|---|---|
Paper co-authored by FRINGE org founder | 118131 | 137 | 2025-07-02 | 2025-07-21 |
Follow-up to a discussion among editors at the talk page for Cass Review. Anyone familiar with that discourse (a topic currently before the Arbitration Committee) will need no explanation on the subject matter. For everyone else, the subject is the Cass Review, a report commissioned by the UK youth gender services, which has become a lightning rod (in real life, as well as on the web, as well as on Wikipedia) for controversy and debates about gender identity and healthcare policy. On Wikipedia specifically, it has given rise to many recondite arguments about deeply technical aspects of sourcing policy as well as the theory and practice of scientific and medical publication. In this thread, concerning this paper in Archives of Disease in Childhood, a discussion ran for a while, and some RfC planning took place. | ||||
Reliability of The Straits Times must be rediscussed | 51038 | 52 | 2025-07-21 | 2025-07-29 |
The Straits Times, the premier Singaporean paper of record, is cited commonly on Wikipedia. However, its use has been questioned in some recent featured article candidates, and some say that in recent years it has become subject to overweening editorial control by Singapore's notoriously strict government. Previous consensa about its reliability, as recorded in RSP (to wit: "There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage... news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt") were called an overly simplified summary of actual RSN discussion. Opinions differed. | ||||
baronage.com | 42493 | 48 | 2025-06-13 | 2025-07-01 |
A source used in a "long list of supposed holders of Scottish baronage titles" at Baronage of Scotland. There was a large volume of discussion, and some expressed concerns about the site's provenance and reliability, although there was not an active issue with specific inaccuracies. | ||||
Reliability of news organisations for Grooming gangs scandal | 24963 | 52 | 2025-07-13 | 2025-07-16 |
A continuation of discussion at the article Grooming gangs scandal, again concerning the government of the United Kingdom, evaluating whether a selection of articles from various papers (including The Telegraph, The Economist, and Sky News) are reliable for the purposes of claiming the existence of a government coverup. |
AN is something of a stolid older brother to the considerably more rambunctious AN/I: it is far less urgent administratively (it is set aside for issues that resolve in days, not hours) and physically (threads tend to stay on it for much longer before being archived). In recent years, AN has subsumed some additional functions, such as ban appeals, which formerly fell under the purview of the Arbitration Committee (and indeed, under the purview of the Signpost's own Arbitration report).
Thread | Length | Number of signatures | Opened | Closed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WP:PIA topic banned | 38652 | 79 | 2025-07-07 | 2025-07-11 | |||
Originally opened by Human Right Wiki to appeal a topic ban on the subject of Palestine–Israel articles, the section was closed as moot after the user was indefinitely blocked by Asilvering ("serious verifiability issues and also violating PIA topic ban, see Special:Diff/1299651817 and earlier). | |||||||
RfC closure review request at Talk:Zionism/Archive 35#Moratorium proposal and Talk:Zionism/Archive 33#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism | 34993 | 50 | 2025-07-26 | 2025-07-31 | |||
Thread opened by Allthemilescombined1, in order to appeal an RfC closure by Chetsford at Talk:Zionism. Chetsford's ten-paragraph-long close had, among other things, affirmed a consensus that the sentence referenced in the OP is compliant with NPOV and should remain. The sentence itself is as follows:
Allthemiles, in their opening post, alleged a number of reasons why the close was bad: a lack of support from sources, aggressive behavior from supporters of the sentence, the subsequent topic-banning of some participants, and headcounting. Chetsford responded with an even more in-depth explanation of his close and his reasoning, some commentary was made by participants and non-participants, and eventually a topic-ban proposal (for Allthemiles) was made by TarnishedPath, which was unanimously supported during the two days it was open. The topic ban was then issued by The Bushranger, and the whole section closed by Pppery, with consensus found to retain the outcome of the RfC closure. The debate following the original RfC was covered by media, see previous Signpost coverage.
| |||||||
WP:UAA | 31740 | 78 | 2025-07-10 | 2025-07-15 | |||
A seemingly anodyne thread — opened simply to let people know there was a backlog at Usernames for Administrator Attention — ended in its opener receiving a namespace block from all project pages after numerous people complained about a constant pattern of improper clerking, followed by an indefinite block as a compromised account. | |||||||
Recreation of deleted article under altered title | 29499 | 48 | 2025-06-29 | 2025-07-06 | |||
A thread was opened to report the WP:G4 page about some sort of influencer (Dananeer Mobeen), which had been created and deleted a whopping seven times (and therefore a speedy deletion under category G4). Since the page title had then been salted to prevent recreation, someone just made an article at her first name (Dananeer). Due to a strange technicality, it wasn't actually a G4 — which only applies to pages deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. This page did have one, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dananeer Mobeen, but that was closed as speedy delete under G5 due to its creator at that time having been a banned user, and not as the result of an actual determination on its notability, making it unclear (even to the monastic scholars who administer this silly website) whether an article recreated in good faith at the same title would have qualified. At any rate, concomitantly to all of this she became substantially more well-known than she had been at the time of the first deletions, making this a "before they were notable" situation, and it was decided to just let the article remain (after moving it to its proper title). |
ANI, known to many as the Great Dismal Swamp, is a noticeboard for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems".
Generally speaking, nobody enjoys being brought here. It is a place for settling disputes between editors when interpersonal discussion fails, and for reporting vandalism slightly too sophisticated for AIV, but it is also a place where long-term patterns of disruption and harassment over decades are addressed and summarily adjudicated by ad-hoc straw polls. It's also a place where people go to hash out beef, settle grudges, whip out dossiers of old drama, and get their enemies banned. The main job of administrators on this board is to figure out which category any given filing falls into, and respond accordingly. It forms a critical part of Wikipedia's governance structure, but it is very resistant to any attempts at making it legible, and most people who aren't heavy editors do not really know about it.
It is not a place of honor. Mostly, it is a chaotic mixture of a school cafeteria and a school principal's office: there are very few explicit rules that govern its operation. While arbitration cases are often stressful, and concern people at their worst behavior on their most sensitive topics, arbitration is a highly regulated procedure in which discussion is moderated according to consistent rules, and decisions are made according to a consistent process. This is not true on ANI: basically anything can happen. This is not to mean that "anything goes" — indeed, people are often punished quite severely for breaking the rules of the venue — they just aren't really written down anywhere, and few can agree on what they are.
Owing to the uniquely and profoundly unpleasant nature of ANI proceedings, in which people invariably get stressed out and say stupid things, I have done my best to refrain from constructing an æ-style gallery of of heated editing moments. You may note that users are here referred to by their initials (the attached links lead to the full threads).
Thread | Length | Number of signatures | Opened | Closed | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs | 523983 | 768 | 2025-06-08 | 2025-07-03 | ||||||
At nearly five hundred and twenty four thousand bytes of text, this is the sixth longest noticeboard discussion in the over the two-and-a-half-decade history of Wikipedia: a completely impenetrable mass of fulminating decades-long grudges which has now made its way to a full Arb case. Space does not permit a recounting of all the events here, nor even a summarizing of them, so instead I will reproduce the full closer's note (left after complaints regarding the initial closer's note):
Indeed, the Arbitration Committee soon accepted the case — Article titles and capitalisation 2 — currently scheduled to have a proposed decision posted by August 15.
| ||||||||||
User:b. | 318473 | 335 | 2025-06-12 | 2025-07-09 | ||||||
This thread was opened regarding a longtime editor with an editorial (and professional) focus on language, folklore and mythology, particularly Norse and Germanic. A long discussion culminated in proposals for a community ban or an unappealable six-month block, neither of which found consensus, but a proposal for a warning did; the editor has not edited since June 12. | ||||||||||
Coordinated harassment against M. | 140970 | 260 | 2025-07-20 | 2025-07-24 | ||||||
A user who has lately been subjected to many grotesque attacks by vandals was in separate disputes with three editors, all of whom were brought to AN/I by a third party who claimed that they were coordinating with one another to harass her. Against one of the users was levied a long pattern of sanctions for harassing and hounding behavior going back years; against the second a series of hostile off-wiki remarks; against the third, a brusque talk page comment (alongside two followup comments asking why it had been deleted from the recipient's talk page, which he thought she wasn't allowed to do, because apparently he did not know about WP:OWNTALK). Ultimately, most people in the ensuing discussion simply said to ban them all, and the thread was closed with consensus to do so. | ||||||||||
D. and personal attacks | 91028 | 134 | 2025-06-27 | 2025-07-05 | ||||||
The original poster of this thread made an Articles for Deletion nomination for Grooming gangs scandal (the same article prompting aforementioned large thread about at RSN). Subsequently, they were involved in a dispute on Twitter, and subsequently to that they were insulted by a user with respect to their political views at the AfD. You can't see what the insult was, and neither can I (it is suppressed, meaning that not even administrators are allowed to view it). Consequently, I can't tell you whether the result of this AN/I thread was justified — but they were only blocked for a month. | ||||||||||
G. selectively removing reliable sources from several articles | 83782 | 113 | 2025-06-22 | 2025-07-01 | ||||||
The complainant brought up an issue with another editor originating in a conduct dispute about an ethnicity topic (White Mexicans), saying that they had been removing large amounts of content on specious grounds and refusing to engage with discussion. The editor responded that the complainant had repeatedly misrepresented consensus and bludgeoned the process. A proposal to topic-ban the complainant from the area under dispute received nine assents and one dissent in two days, and was enacted. | ||||||||||
L. | 67575 | 114 | 2025-07-01 | 2025-07-02 | ||||||
A crosswiki incident involving comments at the Italian Wikipedia, in which the complainee (who also had forty thousand edits on the English Wikipedia) made threatening legal remarks.
They remain active on the Italian Wikipedia. | ||||||||||
Possible hounding and uncivil conduct by User:J. | 63755 | 98 | 2025-07-30 | 2025-08-03 | ||||||
In the interests of disclosure: I (JPxG) participated in discussion on this thread.
This thread was opened to report a user for hounding, on the basis of having nominated several of the complainant's articles for deletion in a short period of time. The complainee responded that they had suspected them of using neural networks to write their articles, which the complainant initially denied but later admitted. A long discussion ensued.
| ||||||||||
O. Changing English variants without consensus | 57925 | 107 | 2025-06-19 | 2025-07-07 | ||||||
An editor doing large amounts of script-assisted edits was blocked from mainspace for changing English-variety templates to {{EngvarB}} against established practice and over complaints. A topic ban proposal was opened, and some general discussion of Manual of Style topics ensued. They were unblocked after accepting voluntary editing restrictions, and no further action was taken. | ||||||||||
User:W. - Action/intervention needed for WP:DISRUPTIVE, including serious and repeated WP:COPYVIO (EDIT: Request URGENT block under WP:CVREPEAT) | 52797 | 109 | 2025-07-13 | 2025-07-14 | ||||||
Sourcing and plagiarism issues were brought up regarding the contributions of a recently-joined but prolific editor; the accusations were borne out and the editor was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations by Sennecaster, and a contributor copyright investigation opened. | ||||||||||
Continued violation of CIVIL by M. | 46186 | 92 | 2025-07-09 | 2025-07-12 | ||||||
A user contributing to the Main Page's In The News section was brought to AN/I for civility concerns and was eventually topic-banned from ITN, and CheckUser-blocked as a sockpuppet the next day. | ||||||||||
Hounding by T. | 42119 | 60 | 2025-07-14 | 2025-07-17 | ||||||
After not editing for several weeks, the complainee resumed reverting abnormally large numbers of edits by the complainant, which they reported as hounding. Both editors were given a two-way interaction ban. | ||||||||||
Incivility and potential ownership concerns on the Mackenzie Ziegler Infobox RFC | 38450 | 51 | 2025-07-24 | 2025-07-25 | ||||||
Infobox dispute. | ||||||||||
User:P. LLM use, poor sourcing (incl. on BLPs) | 37347 | 58 | 2025-07-16 | 2025-07-17 | ||||||
A user was accused — correctly — of using large language models to make a large volume of edits, including nine article creations (of which three have now been deleted). The block summary, from The Bushranger eventually read:
| ||||||||||
Uncivil behavior | 35440 | 91 | 2025-07-06 | 2025-07-07 | ||||||
A complaint about an editor's reversion and coarse language ended in a community ban for the complainant (despite the efforts of four comments opposing a ban, all from accounts registered minutes earlier) and a trout for the complainee. | ||||||||||
IP word vandalism | 33729 | 95 | 2025-07-27 | 2025-08-01 | ||||||
A mysterious detective story caused by someone (or someones) jumping between enormous amounts of IP addresses, seemingly inhumanly fast, to vandalize individual words on articles (either adding them, removing them, or replacing them with synonyms). Many of the addresses never edited before. At any rate, it seems to have stopped a few days ago. | ||||||||||
User:C. | 33333 | 60 | 2025-07-19 | 2025-07-26 | ||||||
Wikipediocracy dispute. Levivich proposes a rule of thumb: "Don't comment on ethnicity in voter guides". | ||||||||||
Technical shenanigans? | 32965 | 47 | 2025-07-17 | 2025-07-26 | ||||||
A disagreement among mathematicians. | ||||||||||
User I. | 32436 | 62 | 2025-07-12 | 2025-07-14 | ||||||
A complaint resulting in the complainant's block from project space.
| ||||||||||
H. | 28930 | 49 | 2025-07-06 | 2025-07-07 | ||||||
Currently, the complainee is page-blocked from the complainant's talk page, as requested in the thread's opening post. | ||||||||||
Request for Administrator Review – Conduct of User C. | 22428 | 51 | 2025-07-19 | 2025-07-22 | ||||||
Complainant raised conduct issues, and was accused of conflict-of-interest editing.
| ||||||||||
K. | 21618 | 51 | 2025-08-01 | 2025-08-02 | ||||||
Accusations of POV-pushing regarding the Russia–Ukraine war.
|
There are a variety of other, more specialized noticeboards, among them BLPN, ELN, FTN, NPOVN, NORN, BN, ACN, BOTN. These tend to be used for rather specific types of content discussion, and while they're definitely relevant to the project as a whole, they don't get as much everyday traffic as the major ones.
Board | Thread | Length | Number of signatures | Opened | Closed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biographies of living persons | Jeffrey Epstein client list | 32471 | 84 | 2025-07-25 | 2025-07-30 |
Discussion (still ongoing) here centers on whether the article Jeffrey Epstein client list should be adorned with this photograph of Epstein with former United States president Bill Clinton — who has not been confirmed to be on any sort of client list. | |||||
External links | Blogs in external links | 32030 | 72 | 2025-04-30 | 2025-07-17 |
The validity of including blogs in external link sections is affirmed, in this case specifically at Historic Site of Anti-Mongolian Struggle. | |||||
Fringe theories | Extending WP:FRINGEORG to other hate groups | 35450 | 53 | 2025-07-12 | 2025-07-13 |
A long and meandering discussion eventually closed with a {{hat}} as a deliberately unserious proposal made to illustrate a point. | |||||
Neutral point of view | Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians? | 61038 | 104 | 2025-06-08 | 2025-07-19 |
A thread, created by the same opener as the previous, that was eventually self-retracted as potentially disruptive. | |||||
Neutral point of view | Promotion of anti-trans fringe theories on J. K. Rowling | 43300 | 69 | 2025-06-12 | 2025-07-17 |
Another entry in the broad and deep waters of the currently-under-arbitration UK transgender discourse. |
Owing again to time constraints, some of these do not have as much of a detailed analysis as I would have hoped to write. For some others, there is not much to say – an infobox argument from 2025 is virtually identical to an infobox argument from 2015. However, on the whole I am satisfied with the winnower's approach. There was a point, when I had much more free time than I do now, when I was in the habit of following nearly every single noticeboard discussion on the entire project: a look through the electrically winnowed top fifty feels like it more or less gives the same degree of general Gestalt. And even if they are not all worth reading (some are quite long), perhaps then they are worth reading a couple sentences of summary.
I think this will become more useful if it becomes possible to include talk pages, project pages, and project talk pages – of which we have 10,099,815, 1,511,331, and 209,282 respectively. These numbers mean that a more scientific approach must be used than just grabbing each one and checking for recent posts: but this can be worked out.
It may seem trivial to keep up with the daily goings-on of our internal processes, but the daily goings-on are what constitute the monthly goings-on, and the monthly goings-on are what constitute the yearly goings-on, and those constitute everything that's changed from 2001 to now, so:
Discuss this story
This is a great digest of the goings-on of Wikipedia, and it feels very appropriate for the Signpost. It would be cool if this becomes a recurring feature, assuming it's not such a time investment that it's impractical. I wonder if RfCs could be checked as a substitute for talk pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The J. K. Rowling one actually led to a very contentious Featured article review. Likely to (finally - in my opinion as the starter of the FAR, it's been well below standards for years in multiple ways) get demoted. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 12:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]