Discussion Report

6 days ago, three editors endorsed the verifiability of this request for user comment. Slp1 requested this review after Michael H 34 was allegedly making non-neutral edits on Father's rights pages. Michael H 34 claims that all the pages he has posted this on maintains a neutral point of view. The user who filed the request is claiming that the user has been doing advocacy editing, additions of original research, edit warring, and rejecting community consensus.

Rama has been called to a request for comment because of fair use templates. Editors have now gone into further detail and are unsure about what has happened to Rama. There is now evidence to suppose that Rama has used un-needed foul language and the fact that the editor has been making some false claims. There have been comments about possibly requesting immediate de-sysopping.

Wuhwuzdat has been recalled to requests for comment because of alleged spamming and biting newcomers. Editors are concerned that this is a split community on the bases of what the user has done. Many users are seeming to lean towards support of the editor's decision.

Asgardian has allegedly been edit warring, being uncivil, and doing trolling actions. Views have not been generally endorsed, but some views at the end have support. Users have commented saying "This has been going on for years".

It has been alleged that Mafia godfather has been "editing tendentiously with regard to articles concerning the sovereignty of Taiwan." There are 32 pieces of evidence that the filing user has claimed. Very little commenting has been done.

Filled against: User:Doncram. This is a two day old thread that has claims of continued dispute. Very little commenting has took place so far as some users still need to reply.

• Good articles
• Self-published sources
• BLP semi-protecting
• Reliable sources
• Notability
• Crystal ball

In this issue

8 February 2010 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

Dispatches

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Arbitration report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

The Discussion report has traditionally been for covering discussion of policy and other aspects of the project that are broadly relevant to the community, rather than reporting of specific requests for comment related to user behavior. I don't see the latter as very constructive to cover in the Signpost; it serves to embarass individual editors, but doesn't have much benefit for the community. I welcome other viewpoints; my view is that we shouldn't publish discussion reports in this vein.--ragesoss (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These appear to be RFCs, although there are no links to the items in question. RFCs have no formal effect on the community and can be unpredictable, idiosyncratic and sometimes unwarranted. —mattisse (Talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]