Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90


 * (Prasi90 | talk | contributions)
 * IP of user is also User:202.177.246.3 (talk • contribs)

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

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.''

Description
The user is vandalising, orchestrating countless personal attacks and voting on RfAs against the wishes of blocking admins.

Evidence of disputed behavior
''Not all examples of disputed behaviour may be listed below. For a full list of Prasi90's edits, see Special:Contributions/Prasi90. and also User:202.177.246.3 talk contribs''


 * Vandalism (primarily of India- and Pakistan-related articles):


 * Extreme POV attacks: ,


 * Personal attacks or attacks against culture:, , , , , ,


 * RfA trolling:, ,     -


 * See also User talk:Prasi90 and User talk:Prasi90 for other users' comments.


 * Side comment: User blocked 24 hours for harassment of users endorsing dispute. NSL E (T+C) at 07:34 UTC (2006-03-15)

Sockpuppets

 * posted complaint about MONGO being incivil to Wikipedia Help desk

Applicable policies

 * WP:VAND
 * WP:TROLL
 * WP:ATTACK

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Block log
 * 2) Comments on talk page
 * 3) Comments by Prasi90 on MONGO's talk page: ,
 * 4) Asked to stop vandalizing by Bhadani
 * 5) Asked to remain civil by Computerjoe

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

(sign with ~ )
 * 1) MONGO 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Jaranda - this certification from Jaranda was blanked and replaced with a message by Prasi90. NSL E (T+C) at 00:29 UTC (2006-03-17)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1)  haz  (user talk) e 20:08, 14 March 2006
 * 2) Mmeinhart 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --rogerd 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) NSL E (T+C) at 07:24 UTC (2006-03-15)
 * 5) --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:51, 21 March 2006 (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.''  Please check my contributions page.You will notice that I have created 5 new pages-Bird Flu In India Zee Cafe Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Manu Bhandari and 16th March 2006 Navi Mumbai riot.Also I have made many positive edits and have added stub tags to quite a few articles.I have been treated also been asked to "grow up and be a good scout" by MONGO,as can be seen on my talk page-is this not uncivil?.I have already been blocked for any offences commited by me in the past.After that I have stopped making such offensive edits.Also as regards my RfA votes,why can I not vote as I please?My productive edits outnumber my offensive ones.Be a good scout and grow up now. This is not a playground.--MONGO 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)-This comment by MONGO is one of many he has made against me.Please note how he urges me to "grow up".He has in the past said such uncivil things to me.Is uncilivity not against Wikipedia policy? Let me now apologise to the entire Wikipedia community for those foolish,unnessecary edits.Also,as for changing my ways,if you would notice I recently cleaned up my userpage by deleting the Anti-American userbox I had put there.The summary for the said edit is "MONGO has a point".I request you to please allow me to continue editing since I have turned over a new leaf.Afetr all,how many times must I be punished for the same offences?I trust that in I will be treated justly by the Wikipedia Community.The bottomline is that my useful edits far outnumber my harmful ones.As for the user Jaranda who claims he has tried to solve this dispute,I have never even heard from him till now.Please help me out.Prasi90 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Readding comment pace in signatories area This person Jaranda has never contacted me {Prasi90} before with any intention of resolving this dispute.This can be verified by checking User Talk:Prasi90

{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 (sign with ~ ):

Rebuttal
is also. Since this began, I have received over 10 hostile and threatening emails from this editor. In one he told me he would transfer the information he wrote that is hostile to "Yanks" onto a blog and that way he could insult "Yanks" as much as he liked, and there was no way to stop him. My guess is that this editor is very young, lacks direction in wikipedia and has a resentment of the United States. As far as the resentment of the United States, I can deal with that, so long as it doesn't show up in article space or once again become insults in talk pages or in emails. I'm inclined to believe that this editor needs to stop his trolling behavior immediately or we will have to block him indefinitely. I can see very little evidence that this editor has much inclination to actually contribute constructively.--MONGO 11:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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.}

Self-enforced probation
User:Prasi90 has indicated that he is willing and able to change his editing style. I would offer to him that all could be forgiven if he/she would stop editorializing/opinionating and contribute only substantiative facts to article space, and to keep his personal observations and opinions of other editors on a more dispassionate basis. I believe this editor is worthy of this chance for redemption. I read through the evidence offered in the above section, and although most of it is beyond the realm of good wiki behaviour, to oppose an RfA based on other editors comments ie. "I oppose based on the other opposition votes" is not altogether unusual. Perhaps a type of mentorship could be offered to Prasi90 if he is amienable to such an idea? I'd rather see some help offered to stear him away from problematic behaviour than to give up entirely on a potentially valuable contributor (conditional on his continued good behaviour, of course). I offer only a very broad suggestion here, and welcome the comments of interested parties who may have more experience in these types of arrangements to "hash out" the details, so to speak. Thank you, in advance for your consideration. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 17:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

One week block
I am blocking this editor for one week for disruption. I'm done wasting time on him. After the end of that block, if the behavior resumes, it will be a month...three stikes and he's gone for good.--MONGO 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week after failing to adequately explain an edit concerning why he replaced "teen" with "vandal" and then reverted back to "teen" in a userbox on his userpage. (I originally misstated that he wrote troll, instead of vandal). When his only response to me was a correction of this fact that I wrote troll instead of vandal in my question, and his ongoing questioning of my comments, I blocked him one week for disruption. Prasi90, stated in his response to my question here that he added vandal to his userpage to denote that he attended the University of Idaho (athletic teams are known by the name Vandal at this institution)(?). I checked Prasi90's IP address by an IP tracker and it clearly demonstrates that he is in India, not Idaho. There is little doubt what the purpose of adding the vandal comment to his userpage was all about. NSLE questioned the length of the block and asked me to qualify the disruption. I explained that viturally every edit this editor makes is disruption, borderline or obvious trolling and I was tired of his insulting emails. The entire dialogue of what transpired next is in this thread in Prasi90's usertalk. In summary, NSLE was patiently awaiting my explanation for the block as I was off line. NSLE disagreed with the length of the block and the reasons for it. I explained that I was not going to post it for admistrative review as this editor is not here to do anything other than disrupt Wikipedia. I posted the insulting emails I received from Prasi90 after I blocked him. Prasi90 stated that he was going to go to arbcom at the end of his block, so I asked NSLE to unblock him and let him proceed with this. NSLE informed Prasi90 that his unblocking was conditional on taking the case to to arbcom (NSLE lifted the block for this purpose). Prasi90 also made the accusation that I may be a racist, but removed it after being warned by NSLE. Prasi90 has stated he doesn't want to now go to arbcom and apologized to NSLE and myself. I've seen these apologies before, and the editor soon goes right back to his usual disruptive editing. In light of the fact that Prasi90 has also edited with his IP only, I am wondering what other areas may be disrupted by sock accounts. Prasi90 has to go to arbcom or I will reinstitute the block to complete the week. I wonder if, in light of the editing history and incessant trolling by this editor, if arbitration is necessary. Aside from a couple of poorly written articles, this account seems to serve no purpose aside from disruption, harassment and insulting others.--MONGO 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block
I indefinitely blocked and  for harassment. this was posted on my userpage after also being posted in Help desk. It is interesting to see no evidence of my being incivil as claimed by post...in fact, in light of the comments, I think I remained very civil. I have permanently blocked Prasi90 and this Happysplashy accounts and the IP account that is also Prasi90's is blocked for 30 days, so expect a new account to appear after that. Comments are welcome.--MONGO 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this block. NSL E (T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-03-29)

Kelly Martin unblocked Happysplashy after looking at edits and I concurred. I have also mentioned in my usertalk that I will allow a complete unblock, but I then wash my hands of this situation completely...not as an act of retaliation for unblocking, but because I am tired of dealing with this time consuming issue. I respect any reversal of my action and will not in any way feel resentment to any editor that rolls back my block.--MONGO 02:09, 29 March 2006 (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.