User talk:Srkris

Archives
Sep 2006 – Apr 2008 May 2008 - Nov 2008

Leave a message

Monday 11 November 23:53 UTC

Civility warning

If you're going to report people for wikiquette, you're going to have to give up comments like this [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

You are the subject at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Srkris. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for a month per discussion at ANI [2]. As you'll see from that, 1 month is a minimum, and it may well be that others might choose to increase the block. Perhaps your reaction to the block might influence any such decision William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the AN/I discussion, consensus appears to favor a longer block. Thus I have extended it to three months starting today. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srkris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Was there a consensus reached to extend my block? Atleast one admin clearly opposed any block. I would like to know the diffs for which I have been blocked, looks like I have been fixed based on some commotion without any clarity, and the block has been extended by a so-called non-existing consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.148.54 (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Declined because you do not address the block reason. For diffs, see [3]. Note that consensus is not required for any block. —  Sandstein  21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srkris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was last blocked on 22nd november and the block expired on 23rd november 2008. After that I havent been incivil at all, and if you check the dates and content of the diffs reported against me by Ncmvocalist at [4], it will be amply clear that this was a frivolous report where either simply there was no incivility or the diffs reported were "not new". I have not been incivil at all after my earlier block of the 23rd Nov. Rather, it was User:Sudharsansn, user:Dbachmann and User:Ncmvocalist who called me "a troll", "a drunkard" etc and against whom I raised Wikiquette alerts at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sudharsansn, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann. These were dismissed as frivolous and I was accused of gaming the system, and the subsequent ANI report raised against me by Ncmvocalist was deemed to be genuine and I have been blocked again now. Based on my WQA against sudharsansn, he was blocked once, but again he was incivil, as reported by me there, but has not been blocked again. Instead, I, the victim of the incivility was blocked for incivility and was accused of gaming the system. The involved editors here are Taprobanus, Ncmvocalist, Sudharsansn, Dbachmann & Mitsube, and these editors "wants" should not have been taken into account for the ANI discussion that wanted me blocked. Although consensus is not required for a block, that is the justification now given for extending my block to 3 months, while I contend there was no consensus or even justification to block me at all. What is the basis on which my block was extended to 3 months now? I simply havent been incivil. Even if my edit comments that some "editors are clueless" is construed as incivil, I have long explained at [5] that it was no more than an expression of genuine concern that those people dont know the subject they edit, a fact the concerned editors admitted in the talk threads of the articles. For my second report against Sudharsansn's incivility (which has been closed without blocking him again although it claims otherwise), see [6]. I am the victim of the incivility here and I have been blocked?? It now appears I am being victimized in a whole new way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revisiting_Srkris

Decline reason:

I have read over the requests you made as well as the ANI thread which resulted in your block. While I see that you have dealt with people that have been incivil and attempted to game the system, that does not excuse your own incivility and gaming the system. Had this been your first offense, I would have quite obviously objected to such a long block, but you have a very long and problematic history which was what brought on the ANI thread to begin with. Also, as Sandstein pointed out above, blocks do not require community consensus. I am declining to unblock you at this time. — Trusilver 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srkris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My own incivility??? I have not been uncivil at all. Please indicate to me the exact diffs of mine for which I have been blocked in the first place, and why such a block was needed to be extended "by the demand of involved editors" in the second place. Saying genuinely that "some editors are clueless about the articles they edit" is not incivility that needs a 3 month ban, it was merely a genuine expression of concern which I already explained to the admin who blocked me earlier at [7], he didnt have anything more to say about it, so I took that he was satisfied with my explanation. Thanks for acknowledging that someone else tried to game the system, and were also incivil to me in the first place for which I raised WQA alerts. This ANI against me was a retaliation by those uncivil editors. I repeat, that I have not been uncivil at all in any manner that needs me to be blocked from editing.

Decline reason:

Read over history of the situation and agree with prior reviews by Sandstein (talk · contribs) and Trusilver (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srkris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Kindly "re-view". My own incivility??? I have not been uncivil at all. Please indicate to me the exact diffs of mine for which I have been blocked in the first place, and why such a block was needed to be extended "by the demand of involved editors" in the second place. Saying genuinely that "some editors are clueless about the articles they edit" is not incivility that needs a 3 month ban, it was merely a genuine expression of concern which I already explained to the admin who blocked me earlier at [8], he didnt have anything more to say about it, so I took that he was satisfied with my explanation. Thanks for acknowledging that someone else tried to game the system, and were also incivil to me in the first place for which I raised WQA alerts. This ANI against me was a retaliation by those uncivil editors. I repeat, that I have not been uncivil at all in any manner that needs me to be blocked from editing.­ Kris (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've used up your quota of unblock requests. Any more and I protect this page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just making sure any reviewing admin is aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Revisiting Srkris. More input could be quite helpful, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or are we abusing the unblock template here? How many admins need to decline before it gets annoying that he keeps requesting unblock? l'aquatique || talk 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that someone with an IP address starting with "59" is trying to get me banned, I just now reverted an unblock request that someone had posted here to get my talk page blocked. ­ Kris (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You could be trying to make yourself seem like a victim, have you considered that? Mitsube (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unadulterated nonsense. First you try to get me blocked for no reason (bring one diff from that ANI that merits this block, can you?) and then you try to keep me blocked indefinitely through these petty conspiracy theories. It is clear one of you guys are doing all this crappy stuff with some kind of complicity. No admin above has addressed my unblock request impartially, and brought a single diff from the ANI to explain my ban. It has all been one great victimization game. ­ Kris (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My unblock requests are not reviewed on frivolous grounds

The ANI - [9]

The background for the ANI:

I am not in the good books of these 5 users - Sudharsansn, Dbachmann, Ncmvocalist, Taprobanus and Mitsube owing to my differences with them on different articles. All of them have one common grouse against me - they dont like my contributions even if I reference them academically. So they have all united against me now.

1. I raised Wikiquette alerts against Sudharsansn for his incivility at [10] and he was blocked for that.
2. Sudharsansn comes back from the block and uses more of his incivil approach at [11]. Dbachmann and Ncmvocalist do the same. I update Sudharsansn's WQA to notify his blocking admin about this, and also raise fresh WQAs against Dbachmann and Ncmvocalist.
3. An admin (William Conolley) then tells me to not call people "clueless" in edit summaries - [12]
4. I explained to the above admin that I did not intend to be uncivil when I called people clueless, that it was an expression of genuine concern. The admin seemed to have accepted the explanation, I heard no more from him on this.
5. Ncmvocalist now raises an ANI report against me in retaliation. He gives the same diff that Conolley cited above and wants me blocked for incivility. The other four join him and raise a demand in chorus.
6. Now comes the interesting part - someone decides that I gamed the system by raising those WQA alerts, and closes the alerts without much ado.
7. I was judged as being uncivil retrospectively from my account's creation and hence blocked (no matter that you need a fresh instance of incivility for a fresh block). This assumes significance since no one in their right mind would block me for those diffs given in the ANI as I was only the victim of incivility (per my WQA alerts).
8. All the above involved editors then chip in with their malicious demands and I am blocked for one month therefore "with their consensus".
9. Some of the involved editors persist with their malicious demands even after this, and another admin decides that consensus has also been reached for extending my block to 3 months.
10. With so much already against me, it was not much of a surprise that all my unblock requests above have been denied without review, citing "my own uncivility" as a reason. I demand to be shown the diffs of mine from the ANI which merit this block, but no admin wants to venture to that territory, they are safe in merely agreeing with their preceeding admin in denying my unblock request.
11. Now someone unidentified vandal (most probably one of the famous five above) reverts the articles I was involved in sometime back, just to bring suspicion on me and charge me for evading blocks. He also raises unblock requests on my behalf in my talk page, which I had to revert. The coterie of "clueless admins fall for this charade again. ­ Kris (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of this is false. Mitsube (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Strong consensus was reached to block Srkris and his unblock requests have also been declined by several admins in this very page. Srkris raises an unblock request, lets it stay there and when the review went against his intention he claims that it came from one of us. What is happening here, seriously?!! This is annoying to the point of warranting page-protection. Srkris is doing what he knows to do best, go on a rampage against all involved editors so that he may take them with him or simply get back to doing what he has been doing all this time. These charges are absolutely frivolous. Especially the part about one of the editors mentioned raising a anon IP unblock request is absolutely nonsensical. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)