Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shashwat pandey



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

Statement of the dispute
Shashwat pandey has a consistent history of POV abuse, tendentious editing, disruptive editing, repeated reverts, and persistent posting of original research.

He has a history of ignoring core WP policies, NPOV, NOR and looking to RS's.

This user has a habit of posting large volumes of text and whole sections of original research, and then conducts multiple reverts on anyone who tries to edit them. Only after he posts these large volumes of text does he then post them on the talk page and says, hey, let's talk (and then he ignores complaints and simply reverts other editors' changes back to his).

Desired outcome
Our goal is to be able to keep a neutral stub for the Sahaj Marg, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission - Chennai, and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission - Shahajahanpur pages. These pages are stubs due to lack of reliable third-party sources (based on administrators' recommendations that this is the best course of action).

We request that Shashwat Pandey be banned from editing these articles in order to keep them balanced articles.

Description
On his former user page, Shashwat Pandey stated his goal was to promote the specific point-of-view that Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM) is "a mind controlling, brainwashing cult...i will leave no stone unturned to make sure that true face of this group is exposed to the world. No matter how long it takes as i am ready to wait...". (He recently changed it due to admin request .)

Since then, he has:

-> relentlessly posted large volumes of original research (mostly in the form of selectively chosen quotations out of the large body of Sahaj Marg literature) to promote his POV (see diffs below),

-> made repeated POV claims with citations that do not match what the claim says (see last paragraph)(see last paragraph ),

-> engaged in frequent reverts of other editors' posts (see diffs below), and,

-> repeatedly ignored other editors' comments and failed to reach consensus (see very last post in this section ).

Evidence of disputed behavior
First, we'll give examples of disruptive and tendentious behavior, then we'll post diffs.

In terms of evidence for a pattern of long-term abuse, here are some example links (please read at end of each of these citation posts):

-> Been repeatedly warned against disruptive editing: (see bottom post here:

-> Engages repeatedly in POV editing (please see last post of each of these): (see last post)  

-> Violated WP:BLP: Please go #40, "FYI on quotes" and scroll up to the paragraph immediately preceding it. Here user Shashwat pandey misrepresents a current civil court case and leads readers to believe the leader of SRCM-Chennai is accused of "criminal" charges. (The background here is that the leader of SRCM-Chennai won a civil case to have rights to the name "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" and now SRCM-Shahajahanpur is appealing this lower court ruling that was in favor of SRCM-Chennai-> this document shows the appeal.)

-> Been repeatedly warned against WP:NOR, e.g.:  e.g.,
 * Here he argues for calling people Zombies who are part of the movement he is opposed to as not OR [[].
 * Here he wishes to use a youtube video which has nothing to do with group as source [[]].
 * Here he wants to add mind control references and then show (in his words) how the group does this.

-> Been blocked at least once for 3rr and edit warring: ,

-> Had multiple 3-R warnings:

-> Been warned against being a troll ,

-> Been warned against canvassing (see very last post ),

-> Has violated WP:USER and WP:NOT (see very last post ), see his former user page

-> Been warned for vandalism

-> Actually tried to disrupt this RfC []

-> Has engaged in WP:ATTACK (this one on the article talk page .  User Reneeholle has been the particular focus of his attacks, because she has asked for admin help (with evidence) after dialogue with Shashwat Pandey repeatedly failed.  In retaliation, user Shashwat pandey has posted unsubstantiated attacks on her user page, on the Sahaj Marg talk page , has posted an attack banner across the top of his user talk page and ignored Wikiquette Alert suggestion to remove it, and filed a retaliatory and false AIV against her.

(Please review these talk pages for user Reneeholle's good-faith efforts in trying to gain consensus of all editors prior to posting (and please note that user Shashwat pandey fails to respond to Renee's appeals for cooperation):          .)

Here are some diffs illustrating the problems outlined above:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:OR
 * WP:RS
 * WP:V
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:CIVILITY
 * WP:TE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Sethie attempted to dialogue with Shashwat numerous time. Not a single one evoked a response: [] [] [] []
 * No responses to Will Babeck's attempt to dialogue []
 * A RfC on article content brought no new users in []
 * by IPSOS: (actually includes many posts and responses)
 * Mediation was attempted
 * Renee attempted dialogue, which was ignored

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Renee 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sethie 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IPSOS (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I haven't looked quite as deeply into this as I think I might need to, but the diffs paint a fairly clear picture. I also don't want to drive off a new user - I do believe this is remediable. The Evil Spartan 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Duty2love 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC) - I have read Shashwat's posts before and I fully endorse and support this summary (and proposed action) purely in the interest of maintaining neutrality in SRCM pages.

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:

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.}

I would like to see an outcome here that all parties can be comfortable with, though it will probably not be what they would have wanted. To me, Wikipedia develops in a way that resembles British Common Law, which is to say precedents are noted and become policy. So it is important in these fairly early years of Wikipedia that the highest standards of dispute resolution are applied. Rumiton 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Rumiton 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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.