User:Netmonger/RfC

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Rajsingam (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This user Rajsinham has engaged in many disruptive activities despite warnings and requests by other editors, this editor has a history of taking things too personally and post messages in talk pages that most of the time amounts to personal attacks, the editor is actively involved in editing his own biography article in wikipedia which is discouraged by wikipedia policies and guidelines. This user has a history of sockpuppeting using the account User:DoDoBirds, the editor himself has admitted to this on his talk page, his statement regarding this is evidence that he takes things too personally in wikipedia you can see the statement . He has a history of resorting for help from many other editors he is acquainted with for his personal agendas. The editor also engages in Wikistalking fellow editors

Desired outcome

• The editor should refrain from using sock puppets for vote stacking and manipulating POV
• The editor should stop stalking other users
• The editor should stop spamming other editors with the same message.
• The editor should understand that he doesn't own articles that he created.
• The editor should be civil and should assume good faith when editing.
• The editor should stop resorting to sock puppeting.

Description

In summary this editor has continuously failed to assume good faith and has engaged in spreading the evil among fellow editors, fortunately non of his wiki friends have joined or endorsed this behavior that is nothing but disruptive. In the process he has gone against many of wikipedia's policies and values.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Evidence for WP:SPAM the editor posts the same message to many users to denigrate another editor [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] all these messages were posted without resorting to resolve the problems with the concerned editor

1. Evidence for disruptive behavior, the editor removed an anon editors message (very important message) saying its

Not signed seems vandalism

1. Evidence for failing to assume good faith when User:Netmonger added the removed the message with template unsign the editor took it very personally and sparked all unnecessary/disruptive conversation here
2. He also complained to his wikiclique asking them to come and make a comment about the above mentioned conversation

• RaveenS
• Oden
• Bakasuprman
• SiobhanHansa
• Wackymacs
• Seraphimblade
• Freedom_skies
• Rumpelstiltskin223

But none of these civil editors responded

apart from the above editors he posted the same message to seven other editors, further evidence can be provided on request.

1. Evidence of editor taking too personally and resorting to sockpuppeting here the editor acknowledges as he was affected by the conflict in Sri lanka he resorted to this kind of behavior.
2. The case opened by editor User:Lahiru_k regarding WP:SOCK can be found here

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:SPAM
4. WP:OWN
5. WP:BLP
6. WP:3RR
7. WP:SOCK

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Evidence for WP:SPAM the editor posts the same message to many users to denigrate another editor [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] all these messages were posted without resorting to resolve the problems with the concerned editor

1. When warned to stop the disruptive behavior, The editor posts a message here asking a irrelevant question.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --Iwazaki 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
3. --Kerr avon 11:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I don’t feel I had any dispute with Netmonger at the Talk Page Rajkumar Kanagasingam other than my posting Are you Arsath?.

I couldn’t understand the legitimacy of the whole RFC process. I removed an annonimous message without sign as "vandalism", and it was replaced by Netmonger only I coveyed the message to other fellow editors assuming it was netmonger who initially posted.

After Seraphimblade informed only I have come to know that I was wrong on "Not signed seems vandalism".
After Siobhan Hansa pointed out only I realised Netmonger only restored some anon editors message. I deleted the statement which I posed towards Netmonger. So far the fellow editors are helpful when I post on to their talk pages and the above mentioned neutral advice from two editors is fair testimony how it is helpful rather than considering it a spam.

My initial Bio: Rajkumar Kanagasingam was created by Wackymacs and not by me.

For some of the accusations, I have already answered here(1) and here(2).

As I believed the whole deletion process was a Sinister AFD Scam, I was compelled to use my sockpuppet DoDoBirds on my Article Deletion and explained here(3)

After I found the following communication
com(1)
com(2)
com(3)
com(4)
I felt really some unduly influence was used towards the article deletion Rajkumar Kanagasingam and informed to other editors.

All other accusations against me are the casual opposite camp "defamation" and "crying foul". Rajsingam 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view RaveenS

1) The so called dispute with User:Netmonger has not been resolved by those who endorse this case according to This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page. I was the only one trying to resolve the issue and I have not endorsed the case because I think we have room to resolve it.

2) Further the pUser:Netmonger has brought in so called disputes with other users in to this rfc.

Hence this rfc has to be delined on procedural issues. RaveenS 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The evidence shows that the user is in violation of many policies, and the violations have affected all the users in the same way. For instance violation of WP:SOCK, WP:STALK has been very disruptive to all of us. If requested by the closing admin I can provide further evidence on other editors trying to resolve some of the disputes on behalf of me, the issue here is not single dispute with multiple editors, or multiple disputes with multiple editors it is "having disputes" in a continuous fashion, with many editors, which makes us to resort to Rfc and the like is a total waste of our valuable time. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply :That is your assumption I am "having disputes" in a continuous fashion.Could you point out other than the same group of "same minded" editors, I had problem with any other editors continuously? Which made you to resort to Rfc is as in Sri Lanka, you want to dominate things in Wikipedia on Sri Lanka Conflict and if there is interference by an editor/editors you feel it is a waste of time. That's all. There are a lot of sock puppets around here. They are only in a matter of time away. I didn’t wait until the Checkuser came to the scene. I readily accepted. That is not a big offence.Rajsingam 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

This editor often violates many of the policies of wikipedia, the most common being WP:STALK, WP:SPAM and he continuously fails to assume good faith so in violation of WP:AGF, and sometimes he personally attacked other editors, so violates WP:NPA,WP:CIVIL and have noticed he being violating WP:OWN,WP:BLP on the Rajkumar Kanagasingam, article. He is blocked for violating WP:3RR in Anton Balasingham article despite many warnings by fellow editors . 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.