Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hamsacharya dan

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: 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

---

• Hamsacharya_dan (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 2.1 Evidence to implicate Hanuman Das (previously known as Adityanath [109]) 3 Outside view 4 Discussion

[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.

[edit] Description

User:Hamsacharya dan is a devotee of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. He has for a long time resisted efforts to nPOV that article. While I ceased editing that article some time ago because his constant edit warring and reverting made it impossible to make any progess. He has been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. My trouble with him has recurred on the article Gurunath. Originally a redirect to his guru's page, even though the name is common in India and it is also used as a title. I posted this on RfD and was advised to write an article about the name and title and did so. Since then, User:Hamsacharya dan has first tried to get it delete via the AfD process, and has now taken to removing the cited section approved during the AfD process. He also keeps restoring uncited information added by a third user which I removed to the talk page asking for WP:VERIFY to be satisfied. Another frequent behaviour is warring over NPOV and other tags. If a tag is added to an article he is protecting, he will either remove it without comment, or put an NPOV tag an article the other editor has been working on in retaliation. Retaliatory edits are a general and frequent theme with this editor. Another tactic is privacy violation, identifying me by a previous username I abandoned under m:Right to vanish and repeatedly redirecting my old userpage to point at my new one; wikistalking, incivility (especially in edit comments). —Hanuman Das, 05:48, 30 April 2006

I should like to add my own observations if that is permissable. I have been observing the behavior of both User:Hanuman Das and User:Hamsacharya dan throughout this dispute. The primary difference is that User:Hanuman Das usually attempts to discuss what he is doing on the article talk page (as do I). User:Hamsacharya dan usually does not respond to discussion on the talk page. He also requested mediation (from User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade) on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. However, after both mediators approved a "conflicting views" section as neutral and properly cited, User:Hamsacharya dan refused to accept the mediation and continued to repeatedly remove or radically alter the section. Here are the two approvals of the artciles by the mods: [1] and [2]. In general, Hamsacharya dan makes undiscussed, large, arbitrary changes to any other POV than his own. He tends not to discuss, and when he does make an appearance on a talk page, he variously lectures, wikilawyers, rants, etc. but does not seem open to the other editors ideas or interested in a good faith discussion and seems to have no desire to compromise in any way. He has done this to me as well as to other users. ---Baba Louis 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view the problem is and has been a lack of discussion on desputed points by User:Hamsacharya dan. This has been carried to an extreme. If I offer a view which conflicts with his POV, he accuses me of being a part of some form of conspiracy. In an effort to minimize an editing war or conflict I have not edited for some period. Instead, I have attempted to discuss on the talk page of disputed articles. This has been largely futile as little has been discussed, but my own views are summarily dismissed or ignored. I don't think this is correct or helpful to the articles in question. I am not a part of any "conspiracy", nor do I have an agenda beyond improving a few articles which I feel I have the knowledge to improve on point. I feel strongly that User:Hamsacharya dan fails to discuss in good faith and seems to have no interest in compromise or working with others. As far as I am aware, this is in conflict with the operating procedures of Wikipedia. Due to this I am writing here in hope that this behavior might be corrected by due process. --Chai Walla 06:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[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. repeatedly removing cited material from Gurunath: 22:44, 29 April 2006, 00:11, 30 April 2006, 01:31, 30 April 2006
2. restoring uncited material to Gurunath: 22:46, 29 April 2006
3. direct and explicit admission of retaliatory editing: [3]
4. inappropriate NPOV tag warring on Gurunath: 20:45, 26 April 2006, 23:53, 26 April 2006, 19:54, 27 April 2006, 21:26, 27 April 2006
5. other undiscussed reverts on Gurunath: 20:01, 29 April 2006
6. repeatedly removing cited material approved by mediation from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath: 23:47, 16 March 2006, 00:03, 17 March 2006, 00:59, 17 March 2006, 02:43, 17 March 2006, 03:42, 19 March 2006, 18:42, 20 March 2006, 11:44, 25 March 2006, 13:17, 2 April 2006, 14:49, 2 April 2006, 15:30, 11 April 2006, 11:53, 14 April 2006, 14:24, 14 April 2006, 13:37, 15 April 2006, 01:12, 16 April 2006, 12:52, 16 April 2006, 23:27, 16 April 2006
7. warring over NPOV tags in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath: 12:52, 16 April 2006, 14:04, 24 April 2006, 20:47, 26 April 2006, 20:14, 27 April 2006
8. Retaliatory tags and edits in Nath article: 14:43, 2 April 2006, 23:14, 2 April 2006, 23:24, 2 April 2006, 23:47, 2 April 2006
9. Retaliatory addition of previously rejected uncited material to Nath article: 21:06, 26 April 2006, 12:17, 27 April 2006
10. Interference with AfD processes (removal of comments, moving own votes/comments to top): 13:27, 3 April 2006, 13:37, 3 April 2006, 14:09, 3 April 2006, 14:31, 3 April 2006, 14:40, 3 April 2006, 15:48, 14 April 2006, 15:36, 25 April 2006, 20:45, 9 May 2006
11. Retaliation by means of Privacy violations: [4], [5], [6]
12. Arbitrarily reverts to "his" version of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath a couple days after consensus version from discussion on talk page is finished: [7], [8]
13. Incivility in edit comments: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
14. Retaliatory AdD nomination: [15], debate archive 1, [16], debate archive 2
15. Additional reverts since this RfC was opened (continued from #6): 08:01, 1 May 2006, 14:16, 1 May 2006, 11:03, 2 May 2006, 11:09, 2 May 2006, 11:16, 2 May 2006, 01:04, 4 May 2006
16. continuing incivility: 20:57, 1 May 2006, 21:48, 1 May 2006, 21:43, 1 May 2006, 22:22, 1 May 2006, 22:26, 1 May 2006, 21:26, 2 May 2006, 10:58, 4 May 2006 (uncivil edit comment)
17. continuing to make changes to mediator-approved material without discussion, completely debasing section: 22:03, 1 May 2006, 22:06, 1 May 2006, 22:07, 1 May 2006, 22:07, 1 May 2006, 22:11, 1 May 2006, 22:12, 1 May 2006, 22:13, 1 May 2006, 22:16, 1 May 2006, 22:21, 1 May 2006, 03:36, 4 May 2006
18. Retaliation by filing a patently false 3RR complaint: [17]
19. Retaliatory page moves (incorrectly done): [18], [19]
20. Removal of comments on RfC pages: [20]
21. repeatedly redirecting a page speedily kept in AfD and undergoing a survey for a requested move: [21], [22], [23]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:CON
2. WP:STALK
3. WP:POINT
4. WP:DISRUPT
5. WP:VERIFY
6. WP:3RR

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

(provide diffs and links)

1. diff, link1, link2
2. diff, [24], link
3. [25], [26]
4. efforts by Cott12
5. attempt to resolve incivility issue by Computerjoe
6. attempts at resolution by Priyanath: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
7. resolution attempts by User:Baba Louis: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]a
8. more resolution attempts by Baba Louis: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]
9. long history of attempts by Hanuman Das to educate Hamsacharya dan on WP policies and processes: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]
10. by Chai Walla: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Hanuman Das 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC) / 66.68.112.85 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Computerjoe's talk 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ॐ Priyanath 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Baba Louis 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC) / 209.221.144.226 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Chai Walla 06:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)-216.39.162.241 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[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.}

This is a dispute between two points of view. I offered several times to work together with him (as well as with his other sockpuppets), but he never complied despite promising to do so. Hanuman Das (talk • contribs) is a devotee and true believer of his Guru Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. He is guarding pages that relate to his Guru from any other material (Nath, Gurunath), and has even gone so far as to verbally threaten me with violence if I continued to add information (by finding my telephone number online). He has created a legion of sockpuppets to promulgate his views and to attack others' views. [108]. He had also resorted to attacking pages of my own creation such as Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath in order to dissuade me from trying to add pertinent information to the other articles. I had been blocked for 3RR because I refused to let him and his sockpuppets keep trashing this page. He and his sockpuppets had also been blocked for 3RR on at least 2 occasions. I would like to say that ALL of the behavior that he is accusing me of, he himself indulged in, as well as his sockpuppets, FREQUENTLY. He says that he has stopped editing the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath page, but he has not as his sockpuppets are still quite active. He still refuses to be reasonable, saying one thing, and doing quite another. His actions speak louder than his words. Hamsacharya dan 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence to implicate Hanuman Das (previously known as Adityanath [109])

• That he has his own agenda to undermine others and promulgate his own views: [110] [111]
• Confirmed sockpuppeting to bolster his POV: Please note that the following users are all confirmed sockpuppets of Hanuman Das - Baba Louis (talk • contribs) and Chai Walla (talk • contribs) [112] Both usernames were created on the same day within hours of each other and started bolstering Hanuman Das's POV to this day.
• An AN/I review that I wrote [113], which I removed [114] at HIS REQUEST because he promised to work together with me - and lied, [115] [116] [117]. (woops, note that these diffs have been wiped out because user Adityanath cleverly had his talk history deleted. Perhaps it can be retrieved?

NOTE THAT THE REST OF THESE DIFFS ARE POST AN/I CITATION - For a full list of grievances, also see the AN/I review above.

• His own personal 3RR citations have been erased due to the fact that he deleted his previous userpage, not to mention any other inflammatory comments or citations that I'm not aware of. Here are some of the diffs I could find. [118][119]
• Personal Attacks [120]
• Post AN/I citation (see above) vandalism of his own:[121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] This is just a sampling. Many have been deleted because other pages of contention had been deleted (i.e. "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" article). More diffs will be included as I get more time to find them.
• Is very likely responsible for these additional sockpuppets to create havoc for me personally (stalking behavior that he is accusing me of) [128] [129] - who else would it be? nobody else has ever bothered me on wikipedia.

MOST RECENT ACTIVITIES - Shows this is clearly a content dispute

1. Nath Page: (Deleting material that interferes with his AGENDA)[130] [131] [132] [133] [134] (Removing the NPOV tag, and claiming that it is retaliatory when clearly not) [135] [136] [137]

2. Gurunath page: THREE OTHER EDITORS DISAGREE WITH HIS EDITS, YET HE CONTINUES TO REVERT TO HIS EDITS AND DELETING/ALTERTING MATERIAL OF THE OTHER 3 EDITORS - [138] [139] [140][141][142][143][144][145][146] (Removing NPOV tag repeatedly) [147][148][149]

Users who endorse this summary:

Hamsacharya dan 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[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.