User:BostonMA/Paul Raj RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Paul Raj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (also Vaikunda Raja (talk • contribs • logs)) has exhausted the community's patience with tendentious editting.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:Paul Raj is a tendentious editor who energeticly promoted his POV regarding Ayyavazhi on Wikipedia. In the view of many editors, User:Paul Raj has

  • promoted a particular POV contrary to the WP:NPOV policy
  • engaged in edit warring and repeated violations of 3RR.
  • engaged in Wikilawyering
  • making misleading edit summmaries
  • referring to good faith edits as vandalism
  • has difficulty distinguishing original research from sourced assertions

Numerous Editors have attempted discussions with User:Paul Raj including:

[edit] 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. Misleading Edit Summaries.
  • "Please don't do such undiscussed edts" [1]
  • "Guys, "this" "is" "wikipedia". This is not the place for your unilateral edits. It's good if you consider the valid citations." [2]
  • "Revreted careless edits" [3]
  • "Hmm, this is the problem! Editing without discussing and mindless to valid citations as once in Tamil people. Friends, I don't want to behave rude to any body here. Pls Ustand." [4]
  • "Users, What consesnsus? What is going on here? Please don't undergo reason less, undiscussed reverts. see Talk:India#Citations" [5]


  1. Referring to Good Faith Edits as Vandalism.
  1. Other misleading Edit Summaries
  • "Friend, As per WP guidelines, the consensus of users should be made with repect to valid citations. The sources cited are reserch papers from leading Universities. No answers?" [6]
  1. Edit Summaries which imply users have not followed argument
  • "Guys, "this" "is" "wikipedia". This is not the place for your unilateral edits. It's good if you consider the valid citations." [7]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] 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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

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.